Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Mahmoud Khalil's deportation rulings.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 15 minutes.

Last Friday.

Our interview Friday with Richard Hanania generated a good deal of commentary. We anticipated and responded to a lot of readers from the left upset with us for interviewing Hanania given his past, but did not anticipate that a lot of readers from the right would write in to criticize our editorial imbalance for interviewing a Trump voter who regretted his choice. “Are you going to interview someone who regrets voting for Kamala Harris, or for Joe Biden? You know, since you claim to care about balance,” one reader commented.

For those who are interested, we actually did share the voices of people who backed off their support for Biden, most notably Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN) — whom we interviewed in October of 2023 after he called on Biden to drop his reelection bid and announced he was challenging him for the Democratic nomination. We also published an entire Friday edition on why Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election, which included many criticisms from her supporters.

You can read a transcript of the Hanania interview (members-only) here or watch the interview on YouTube here.

Quick hits.

1. China suspended exports of a range of critical minerals and magnets in response to President Donald Trump’s tariffs. The materials are used as key components by automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies, and military contractors. (The suspension) Separately, the Trump administration announced that electronic devices — such as smartphones and laptops — would be exempt from its individualized tariffs on China; however, the White House later said those products were still subject to the administration’s baseline 10% tariffs and the original 20% tariff imposed on China in February. (The comments)
2. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) and his family were evacuated from their home after a fire broke out in the governor’s mansion early Sunday morning. Law enforcement officials announced they had arrested and charged a suspect with attempted murder, terrorism, aggravated arson, and aggravated assault against an enumerated person. (The fire)
3. American and Iranian officials reportedly held direct talks in Oman on the future of Iran’s nuclear program. A second round of direct talks is expected to take place in Rome on Saturday. (The talks)
4. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the United States had deported 10 more alleged gang members to El Salvador. The deportations come as President Trump hosts Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele at the White House on Monday. (The announcement)
5. A Russian missile attack on the Ukrainian city of Sumy killed at least 34 people and wounded 117, according to Ukraine’s State Emergency Service. The attack is the deadliest in the Russia–Ukraine war this year. (The attack)

Today's topic.

The court rulings on Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Mahmoud Khalil. In the past week, U.S. courts have issued a pair of significant rulings on the deportation actions of the Trump administration. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled without dissent to uphold a federal judge’s order that the government must facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Separately, on Friday, an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that the government could deport Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and recent Columbia University graduate student, on national security grounds. 

Back up: In March, the Trump administration deported hundreds of noncitizens and alleged gang members to a detention facility in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which gives the president the wartime authority to deport any foreign nationals of an enemy nation. Among those deported was Abrego Garcia, a noncitizen who had previously been granted an order blocking his deportation to his home country of El Salvador due to threats on his life; the Trump administration cited an “administrative error” for his deportation but said the court lacks the authority to order his return.

Separately, on March 8, immigration authorities arrested Khalil after the State Department revoked his legal status. While a graduate student at Columbia, Khalil was a prominent pro-Palestinian activist who led protests against Israel’s actions in the war in Gaza. Khalil has yet to be charged with a crime, however the Trump administration is justifying his deportation order under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which allows the secretary of State to deport noncitizens if they are deemed to risk “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” Khalil is being held at the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center while he challenges his removal.

You can read our coverage of the Trump administration’s El Salvador deportations here and of Khalil’s arrest here.

The Supreme Court’s Thursday ruling found that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis could require the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, but sent the case back to Xinis to clarify her wording. The administration had argued that the judge’s order infringed on the president’s power to conduct foreign affairs. However, the court found that Xinis’s order “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

The administration has yet to explain how it will bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States, but on Saturday, a State Department official filed a briefing that affirmed Abrego Garcia is “alive and secure” in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. However, the administration also argued that the court's ruling does not require them to help extract Abrego Garcia from El Salvador; instead, the administration says it will satisfy the order to “facilitate” his return by removing “domestic barriers,”should El Salvador release him.

Separately, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jamee Comans’s ruling that Khalil can be deported found that the government had met its burden of proof to remove him, giving Khalil’s attorneys until April 23 to file relief applications. At a hearing on Friday, the government said that Khalil had misrepresented himself on his green card application, asserting that when he applied for permanent U.S. residency he had willfully failed to disclose previous employment with the Syrian office in the British Embassy in Beirut or with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. Additionally, Secretary of State Marco Rubio submitted a letter to the court justifying Khalil’s deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Khalil’s case now moves into a “relief” stage, wherein his lawyers will argue for his right to stay in the U.S. If that effort fails, they may appeal to an immigration board and then a federal court before his deportation can take place. 

Today, we’ll share perspectives on the two rulings and the latest in each case, with arguments from the right and left. Then, my take.

What the right is saying.

• The right criticizes the judge in Abrego Garcia’s case, arguing she has not heeded the directive in the Supreme Court’s order.
• Most support the immigration court’s ruling on Khalil’s deportation, saying the Trump administration’s action is legally justified. 
• Others argue the left is misrepresenting the Supreme Court’s ruling. 

The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote about “Trump, wrongful deportation and the courts.”

“In an unsigned order, the Justices said the Administration must comply with Judge Xinis’s instruction that it ‘facilitate’ Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador. But the Court also said the judge’s use of the term ‘effectuate’ in her order was ‘unclear, and may exceed’ her authority,” the board said. “Judge Xinis seems to have read past the part about deference to the executive branch. Instead she responded with an aggressive order that the government provide information about its efforts at 9:30 Friday morning. The Justice Department asked to have until April 15 to respond.”

“Now that Mr. Abrego Garcia is in El Salvador, the U.S. can’t simply order that foreign government to send him back. This requires diplomacy, which is a foreign-policy function reserved for the executive,” the board wrote. “This is a showdown nobody needs. The Supreme Court tried to balance the due process and executive power interests in the case, and Judge Xinis acted as if the Supreme Court had merely offered her counsel she didn’t need to take. She is needlessly courting a clash with the executive branch.”

In National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy said the “immigration court gets it right on Mahmoud Khalil deportation call.”

“Khalil’s activities and presence, Rubio assesses, ‘undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States,’” McCarthy wrote. “Naturally, there has been uproar, particularly from Islamists and leftists, because Rubio’s determination does not rely on any criminal allegations. There is, however, no legal requirement that exclusion or removal be based on criminal activity — the point of mandating that the secretary of state personally make a determination is that the assessment is based on a reasonable government judgment, not a crime.”

“The order granting removal was the right call, regardless of the caterwauling that has already resulted. The president must be permitted to expel non-Americans who are pro-Hamas, antisemitic agitators,” McCarthy said. “An alien, even [a lawful permanent resident], is a guest in the United States, not a citizen of the United States. The Constitution does not command that we abide in our midst aliens who champion anti-American, counter-constitutional programs. It is thus fitting and essential that Congress has vested removal authority in the secretary of state.”

In PJ Media, Matt Margolis suggested the left “missed a key detail in SCOTUS ruling” on Abrego Garcia.

“While liberal commentators rushed to celebrate the decision as a sweeping victory, they ignored key nuances in the Court’s language that sharply constrain the ruling’s actual reach… The Supreme Court issued an injunction regarding the deadline for his potential retrieval, ordering his return to the United States. However, this ruling comes with significant caveats that many on the left have conveniently ignored in their rush to celebrate,” Margolis wrote. “The order explicitly highlights limitations on District Court authority and emphasizes executive branch discretion.”

“In other words, the Supreme Court has stepped in to curb overreach by district judges… the Court's decision focuses more on procedural aspects than establishing any permanent right to remain in the country. While the Court maintained parts of the district court's order, it specifically struck down the deadline requirement and called for clarification on implementation,” Margois said. “The ruling underscores a fundamental truth: Even seemingly straightforward Supreme Court decisions often contain crucial details that completely change their practical impact, and the left celebrated way too soon.”

What the left is saying.

• The left supports the gist of the Supreme Court’s ruling but says it remains ambiguous.
• Some are disappointed by the Khalil ruling but say his fight against deportation is not over.
• Others criticize the administration's legal argument for deporting Khalil. 

In Vox, Ian Millhiser wrote “Trump defied a court order. The Supreme Court just handed him a partial loss.”

“On Thursday evening, the full Court lifted [Judge Xinis’s] block in what appears to be a 9-0 decision (sometimes, justices disagree with an order but do not make that dissent public). Still, Thursday’s decision does not order Abrego Garcia’s immediate release and return to the United States,” Millhiser said. “The Supreme Court concludes that the lower court’s order ‘properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.’

“But it adds that the ‘intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order’ — to ‘facilitate and effectuate’ his return — ‘is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.’ The word ‘facilitate’ suggests that the government must take what steps it can to make something happen, while the word ‘effectuate’ suggests that it needs to actually make it happen,” Millhiser wrote. However, the ruling “does suggest that a majority of the justices are open to the possibility that the US government will request Abrego Garcia’s release, that the Salvadorian government says ‘no,’ and that at some point the courts will not be able to push US officials to do more.”

In Jacobin, Chip Gibbons said “Mahmoud Khalil’s battle is not over.”

“Friday’s ruling is part of a broader crackdown on free speech rights related to Israel’s assault on Gaza. According to Irene Khan, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the war in Gaza ‘has unleashed a global crisis of freedom of expression,’” Gibbons wrote. “Khalil’s battle is not over. His habeas petition challenging the constitutionality of his detention is still a live issue that will be considered before a federal court. The federal judge has ordered that Khalil’s deportation be stayed until he can rule on the habeas petition.

“Even in immigration court, Khalil still has options. Having been found to be removable, Khalil can request relief from deportation. He can also eventually appeal the judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. But the ease with which the Trump administration has been able to have Khalil abducted, whisk him away to a private prison in Louisiana, and have an administrative judge ratify a legal assault on the First Amendment rights of a US permanent resident is troubling, to say the least. For now, Khalil remains a political prisoner in the United States.”

In The Guardian, Moustafa Bayoumi argued “the case against Mahmoud Khalil is meant to silence American dissent.”

“Let’s be absolutely clear about how outrageous this decision is. The judge, Jamee Comans, had given the Trump administration a deadline to produce the evidence required to show that Khalil should be deported. In a functional state, such evidence would rise to a standard of extreme criminality necessitating deportation,” Bayoumi said. “In response to the judge’s order, the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, produced a flimsy one-and-a-half-page memo that admits that Khalil engaged in no criminal conduct… the government was saying that Khalil’s views — including even his future views — were sufficient grounds for his deportation.”

“It would seem that Rubio believes the phrase ‘freedom and equality for everyone’ undermines US foreign policy interests. He may finally be right about something. But he’s wrong about Khalil, who clearly is not antisemitic,” Bayoumi wrote. “The attempt to deport Khalil is meant primarily to discipline the people of the United States into silence and conformity. For that reason alone, the government’s actions must be resisted. Healthy societies are based on free thinking and dissent. Unhealthy societies mobilize fear and intimidation to regulate opinion and manufacture consent.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• I stand by my opinion on Khalil’s deportation, but concede that the government’s argument is legally sound.
• I am more committed to my opinion on Abergo Garcia’s case, though I anticipate that the court won’t enforce his return if El Salvador won’t release him.
• These rulings clarify that the government has broad latitude for justifying deportations, but must still follow due process.

I’m a big fan of accountability in journalism, and the recent proceedings in these two cases offer an interesting opportunity: to re-evaluate some of my writing in the wake of new information.

Let’s start with Mahmoud Khalil. The gist of “My take” when we first covered his case was that the administration was not applying immigration law normally, Khalil’s due process rights were being violated, and green cards shouldn’t be revoked for actions like those Khalil was accused of (mostly “being pro-Hamas” and organizing student protests against Israel, even those that ended with accusations of Jewish students being harassed). I also allowed that “my position could change” if the administration charged him with a crime or revealed new information, but that the evidence I had access to at the time indicated the Trump administration was “attempting to arrest and deport someone for peacefully saying a bunch of things they didn't like.”

Now for the new information. The State Department’s two-page memo (which you can read) justifying Khalil’s deportation does not describe or allege any criminal conduct, but instead argues that it doesn’t have to in order to justify his deportation. In it, Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserts that allowing Khalil to remain in the country would “undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States.” 

This argument was apparently enough for Judge Jamee Comans, and even legal commentators like Andrew McCarthy (I’ve been boosting McCarthy when we agree in recent weeks, so it’s only fair to note that we’re on opposite sides of this one). I’m unconvinced, but my core beef isn’t with that conclusion but with existing law that the secretary of State can issue a personal declaration (like “Khalil is a threat to foreign policy because of antisemitism”) and then deport a noncitizen based not on evidence of a crime but on their alleged beliefs. Even ceding that, the administration choosing to stretch a narrow application of immigration law to its limits strikes me as unreasonable. The fundamental claim in Rubio’s memo is still that Khalil has acted in antisemitic ways or promoted antisemitism, which is not an argument I’ve seen buttressed by facts (many proud Jews share the exact criticisms of the Israeli government that Khalil does). 

However, the administration’s new accusations were much more notable: During his green card application, Khalil improperly omitted work he did with the Syrian office in the British Embassy in Beirut and with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. That new argument is closer to the kind I said could change my mind, and if the administration were deporting him on those grounds, I think they’d be on much firmer footing. But their primary accusation seems to continue to be that he’s fostering antisemitism in America, and thus undermining U.S. foreign policy.

Perhaps you believe that Khalil has, or is likely to have, some abhorrent views and associations (I do). Perhaps you believe that the protests Khalil was involved in left Jewish students feeling intimidated and frightened on campus (I do). Perhaps you believe Khalil has even expressed sympathy for a terrorist organization like Hamas (I’ve yet to see strong evidence of this — nor has the government produced it — but sure). Even so, do you really think his presence in the U.S. has “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for our country, as Rubio claims? Do you think this man — a legal, permanent U.S. resident, with a U.S. citizen wife (who is pregnant and set to give birth this month) — deserves to be sitting in a Louisiana prison for over a month, with no end in sight? Or that he needs to be sent back to Syria, a country he says he fled because of its civil war? 

Those propositions continue to strike me as ridiculous; but I also have to acknowledge some weakness in my initial take a few weeks ago. At the very least, I underestimated how much latitude this little-used immigration law gives Secretary Rubio to single out and deport a person like Khalil. That power is, at least according to some judges and scholars, quite well vested in the secretary of State in our country. 

I can understand why we have this law. If the U.S. government credibly suspects a person of actually planning to perpetrate terrorism, it should be able to deport them. I just think the notion that Khalil is that person is completely bonkers, and I’m hopeful that a federal judge in New Jersey or future challenges bear that out. 

Now for Abrego Garcia’s case. In a Friday edition earlier this month, I argued for due process for anyone on American soil. Simply put, I argued that the Trump administration should not be deporting people (even noncitizens here illegally) to a maximum security prison in El Salvador without first accusing them of any crimes, proving they were actually not here legally, and affording them due process throughout. I argued that this is both morally repugnant and also probably illegal — even for Abrego Garcia, who we eventually learned did enter the country illegally. 

What’s happened since then only makes me more confident in my initial writing. The vice president of the United States spent the week after Abrego Garcia was deported mocking reporters on the internet for misunderstanding immigration law — only for the Supreme Court to issue a 9–0 decision affirming a district court’s order to bring Abrego Garcia home. Officials like Stephen Miller pretending this was a win for the Trump administration is pure political invention. 

That being said, Miller would have been right to suggest that those celebrating this ruling as a defeat for Trump were out over their skis. The Supreme Court’s ruling, despite being 9–0, does leave open the possibility that the Salvadoran government can inform the United States that they can’t get Abrego Garcia home, in which case the lower court’s ruling is unenforceable and the government can say it complied with the order. In other words: It’s possible the Supreme Court orders the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia, the Trump administration says it can’t influence El Salvador’s government, and the Supreme Court can only accept that outcome. For all intents and purposes, that would mean the administration just got away with illegally sending a (potentially) innocent person to an El Salvadoran prison with no due process for (potentially) the rest of his life.

The Supreme Court’s order and the ruling in Khalil’s case, along with the last few weeks of court rulings on immigration cases, tell us two things. First, the Trump administration appears to have wide legal latitude to deport immigrants here on visas, even for speech that would be constitutionally protected for American citizens. Second, while they might be able to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens they accuse of being here illegally (we’ll get more clarity on that soon), they must afford those noncitizens due process.

That’s the current state of play. The Trump administration is now back to promising it will be deporting a million illegal immigrants, a goal it is so far lagging well behind on, but I think it’s safe to assume the immigration battles are about to ratchet up. 

Take the survey: What do you think of the recent court decisions? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: There’s a lot of information going around right now about the fact that all of Donald Trump’s children were born prior to their mothers gaining U.S. citizenship. And that if he were to pass this law [repealing birthright citizenship] it would void all of their citizenships as well. However, with Donald being a citizen, I’m curious how that would play out. 

—Anonymous

Tangle: The short answer is no, but I think it’s worth explaining why this particular brand of conspiratorial thinking that frequently goes viral on the left is nonsense. 

To clarify, the administration is not attempting to repeal birthright citizenship through a law or a constitutional amendment, but instead by issuing an executive order that reinterprets an amendment to the Constitution. On January 20, President Trump ordered that the Fourteenth Amendment would no longer be interpreted to extend birthright citizenship in all cases, arguing that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” does not apply to non-permanent residents or illegal aliens. Specifically, the executive order states that birthright citizenship should only be granted to children who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. 

First, the order does not technically apply to anyone right now. The order was challenged in U.S. district courts, where judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state blocked the administration from enforcing it. In March, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the Supreme Court to partially block those orders, but the court has not issued a ruling yet, leaving those challenges standing. 

Second, Donald Trump’s children would not be subject to this order for the simple fact that their father is a U.S. citizen. 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the order would not revoke citizenship from any person to whom it had already been granted; the executive order was written to take effect 30 days after it was issued on January 20, 2025.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

On Thursday, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed into law a bill banning the purchase, sale, and manufacture of most semi-automatic firearms without background checks and training. The law requires individuals to pass a background check and receive an eligibility card from their county sheriff, after which they must pass a 12-hour safety course (or a four-hour course for those who have previously completed hunters' training). Afterward, licensees are entered into a state database of those eligible to purchase a semi-automatic firearm, contingent upon passing another background check at the point of sale. The Colorado State Shooting Association says the law is unconstitutional and plans to sue. CBS News Colorado has the story.

Numbers.

• 37. The number of days since Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest.
• 45%. The percentage of likely U.S. voters who believe Khalil should be deported, according to a March 2025 Rasmussen Reports survey.
• 38%. The percentage of likely U.S. voters who disagree with Khalil’s deportation.
• 18%. The percentage of likely U.S. voters who say they are unsure about whether Khalil should be deported.
• 30. The number of days since Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador. 
• 238. The number of noncitizens and alleged gang members deported to El Salvador on March 15. 
• 87%. The approximate percentage of those deported who did not have a criminal record in the United States, according to a Bloomberg analysis. 

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just written a Friday edition arguing Elon Musk was wrong about illegal voting.
• The most clicked link in Thursday’s newsletter was the stock-trading U.S. representative who campaigned on banning congressional stock trading. 
• Nothing to do with politics: The Masters came down to a sudden-death playoff on Sunday. In case you missed it, here’s the historic ending.
• Thursday’s survey: 3,535 readers answered our survey on President Trump’s 90-day tariff pause with 66% opposing the tariff announcement but supporting the pause. “Congress needs to take their power back,’” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) take over 1,000 years to decompose, which is why they’re often referred to as “forever chemicals.” PFAS have been found in food, water and many domestic products, and they have been linked to multiple serious health conditions. However, 16 states and the Environmental Protection Agency have adopted policies to limit the use of these chemicals in everyday consumer products, including apparel, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetic products, and menstrual items. “This is a landmark decision that will save countless lives,” Dana Colihan, a co-facilitator of the National PFAS Contamination Coalition, said. Good Good Good has the story.

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 370,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!