Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Sen. Van Hollen Meets Mistakenly Deported Man In El Salvador; U.S. And Iran To Hold Second Round Of Nuclear Talks Tomorrow; Some Children Left To Navigate Immigration Court Alone. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired April 18, 2025 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:01:13]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ACNHOR: Happening now, the Salvadoran National at the center of an immigration debate here in America, meeting with a member of Congress. We expect Senator Chris Van Hollen to give an update soon on the controversial detention of Kilmar Abrego Garcia today.

Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. Wolf Blitzer is on assignment. I'm Pamela Brown and you're in The Situation Room.

Well new this morning, President Trump taking aim at Democrats over their latest move in the ongoing deportation saga of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The President slamming Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen as a quote grandstander after his recent trip to El Salvador. Van Hollen posted this photo of his meeting with Abrego Garcia last night providing the first look at the Maryland man since he was mistakenly deported to a notorious mega prison in his native country. And now we're standing by for more details from Senator Van Hollen about that key meeting.

For more on this, we're joined now by CNN correspondent Priscilla Alvarez. So when can we hear more from Senator Van Hollen on this?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we are told that the Senator is on his way back to the United States. When he arrives and when we expect to get a full readout of what happened here.

And just to remind viewers, the Senator went to El Salvador on Wednesday. There were at least two instances that indicated that he wasn't going to be able to meet with Abrego Garcia in the way that he said that he wanted to and wasn't the entire intention behind the trip. Number one, the Vice President of the country had denied access following an in-person meeting.

And in CECOT, he was similarly denied access. Of course, that is the notorious mega prison where Abrego Garcia is being held. But then suddenly, last night, we saw these photos that were posted by him as well as the Salvadoran president of him having the meeting.

Now, you will note in the photo that he is dressed in casual attire. Of course, that is different from what prisoners wear and the uniform they wear when they are in that CECOT mega prison. Now, his wife showing some relief in a statement to CNN saying quote, my child -- my children and my prayers have been answered. The efforts of my family and community in fighting for justice are being heard because I now know that my husband is alive. God is listening, and the community is standing strong.

The White House taking a bit of a different stance, as you were pointing out there, saying in a statement that the Senator, quote, firmly established Democrats are the party whose top priority is the welfare of an illegal alien MS-13 terrorist. As a reminder, a federal judge has said that there has not been enough evidence providing evidence provided to the court to substantiate the claim that he is tied to MS-13.

But all the same, this was a remarkable moment because if you think about this, his wife hasn't heard from him since mid-March, let alone seen him since he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And that is true not only for Abrego Garcia, but all of the migrants who were sent to this mega prison in El Salvador last month. And so now she did see that photo. She did hear from the Senator. And we're going to get more details later today as to how exactly all this unfolded. What I will tell you is very clear from the Salvadoran president is that he will, he, Abrego Garcia, will remain in Salvadoran custody.

BROWN: Yes, and obviously the Salvadoran president was strategic in allowing this meeting and the way it happened. If we could just put that picture back up. You know, he wants everyone to see this and say, oh, look, he's, you know, everyone's been talking about he's in this prison. And but look how healthy and well he looks. I mean, but this is not the uniform in \the prison, right?

ALVAREZ: This is not the uniform. He's also wearing a baseball cap. And we know that when they go into the prison, their heads are shaved. It's also notable because we don't often see anyone leave the prison. That is the whole point behind this prison. So the fact that he was even released to do this was in and of itself a remarkable moment. But again, what we're missing here and what we will be learning more over the course of day is how exactly this came to be.

[11:05:02]

BROWN: All right. We'll keep track on that. Priscilla Alvarez, excellent reporting as always.

And let's get some more reaction to the latest development in this controversial case CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig is joining me. Elie, you have written this new -- new article for "New York Magazine" about the various ways this legal fight could play out. Lay out those three scenarios, if you would, for us.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Pam. So the first of the three scenarios is essentially the status quo where we are right now. It's what I call passive aggressive resistance by the administration. Now, the courts, including the Supreme Court, have ordered the executive branch that they must, quote, facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the United States.

Now, it's clear if you read those decisions, the courts mean that the executive branch should make some meaningful effort to return him. But the executive branch has interpreted that phrase facilitate incredibly narrowly to essentially mean we can just sit back and as long as we don't put any obstacles in the way we're doing our job.

Now, if that continues, then the result will be Abrego Garcia will in all likelihood remain in El Salvador and the executive branch will do real damage to the legal system and to itself. Now, the second scenario here would be an escalation. It's what I call aggressive defiance by the executive branch of the courts.

If the courts start to ramp up their instruction, if the courts start to give more specific direction than just facilitate, if they say you have to return him, you have to ask for his return, you have to stop paying for that prison, the CECOT that Priscilla just mentioned. And if the executive branch defies that, then we are in a true showdown. I don't like this phrase constitutional crisis. That would be a constitutional crisis.

But it's important to note the public polling shows there would be mass rejection of that. Over 80 percent of all Americans, over 60 percent of Republicans would reject that type of conduct by the executive branch. And then the third and final scenario, Pam, that I lay out in the piece is if there is some giving of way here. If the administration decides, OK, we've taken on enough political damage, enough legal damage, let's bring him back.

But they've made clear, the administration has made clear, they do not intend to let him return to his home in Maryland. They would then seek to reinitiate deportation procedures. But two important things will come of that. One, he could not be sent to El Salvador. That's what a judge has already said. The only place he cannot be deported to and to most importantly, he would have some due process rights. He would have some ability to challenge this in the courts.

So those are the three end game scenarios, Pam. None of them are great for Mr. Abrego Garcia. And all of them do threaten to impose some real damage on our constitutional system.

BROWN: And just to add on to that, not only would he not be sent to El Salvador, one would think because of the order withholding, although the White House contends that that's moot now that he's they're claiming he's an MS-13 member without providing evidence. But he wouldn't be sent to a mega prison for life that is known for human rights abuses. And I think that's an important point here, right? That when you're deported, typically you go through a due process and you're sent to another country, typically where you still have some liberty and resources available. You're not just sent to a mega prison for life, right?

HONIG: Yes. I mean, most people when they're deported, they -- without having been convicted of anything, they're not imprisoned at all. They're just sent to that other country. And Pam, you make another real point that I want to address. The administration has decided it's enough if they just announce he's a member of MS-13. But the whole point of due process is you don't get to unilaterally decide that. It has to go through courts. There has to be some type of proof. So I think that's another important point to call out here.

BROWN: And just to follow up on that, the administration is clearly really trying to emphasize the MS-13 aspect of this, again, without providing the evidence. And -- and there have been questions, why haven't they shown this in court? But, you know, that's sort of a side issue when you look at the underlying issue here of due process, right? Because even if he was a member of MS-13, which again, we don't know, that doesn't mean he wouldn't get due process in the United States, right?

HONIG: Yes. I mean, look, when I was a prosecutor, I charged, indicted all sorts of people that we allege were members of gangs, that were members of drug trafficking networks. And guess what? We had to then go into court and prove it. Just alleging it is not enough. And on that point, Pam, a couple of things. First of all, it doesn't actually matter if he's a member of a gang or not when it comes to deportation.

He can actually be deported if he's here illegally, without regard to whether he's done anything wrong or he's in a gang. As to that point, though, look, nobody knows. We've not seen any evidence. I don't know whether he's part of MS-13 or not. But I have real doubts based on the fact that he's been here 15 years, he's never been arrested, the administration has not shown us any proof of anything. The whole thing comes down to one confidential source who said he was active in the gang in New York, but he lives hundreds of miles away in Maryland, and he would make annual appointments with ICE and go in and self-report.

So, look, I was a gangs and organized crime prosecutor. None of that suggests to me he's a substantial member of MS-13, if he is at all.

[11:10:04]

BROWN: Just on that, you said you were a member of that unit. I think that's really important context. If someone was a gang member would they typically go into ICE and self report or usually they're trying to stay on the radar to not get any attention?

HONIG: There are so many things that a real gang member, a real organized crime member would do that are not consistent with anything Mr. Abrego Garcia has done. I mean, look, just having tattoos is ridiculous. Even just the administration keeps pointing back to this one confidential source who said he was a gang member. You can't base any real law enforcement action on one confidential source, especially an unreliable one.

It's important to note the source who they're relying on was later found to have committed all sorts of misconduct. So they're really stretching here. Look, if they had the proof, we would see it, I think, and a court would need to see it.

BROWN: Elie Honig, always great to see you. Thank you so much.

HONIG: Thanks, Pam. All right. BROWN: And still ahead, we have some new reporting into The Situation Room, brand new details on the suspected gunman in the shooting at Florida State University.

Plus, Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff may be flipping the script on U.S. demands for Iran's nuclear program. The late reporting just in.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:15:44]

BROWN: I have new reporting on Secretary of State Marco Rubio giving Russia and Ukraine only a matter of days to show progress toward a peace deal. A source familiar with those negotiations tells me that Rubio is communicating the frustration of President Trump who, quote, doesn't have limitless patience for people to posture and play games. The source telling me it's time to get serious and it's crunch time in the view of the Trump administration, end quote.

Meanwhile, U.S. and Iranian negotiators are due to meet tomorrow in Rome for a second round of nuclear talks. Both countries face new tensions that have bubbled up since last Saturday. Trump envoy Steve Witkoff appears to have flip-flopped U.S. demands, moving from limiting Tehran's nuclear program to possibly abolishing it.

CNN chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt is here with us in The Situation Room. You know, Witkoff is really at the center of so many of these negotiations overseas, including Iran. How much of these new tensions hang over tomorrow's talks, Alex?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: It's very significant, Pamela, because it's a very fundamental question that Iran is certainly going to want clarification on. Does the U.S. see the possibility for Iran to have any kind of nuclear program at all? The U.S. has been very clear they don't want Iran to have a nuclear program that could lead to a weapon, but Iran has insisted and said this is a red line, that it's non-negotiable that they be allowed to hold on to some kind of nuclear program for civilian purposes.

Earlier in the week, we heard from Witkoff, who appeared to be OK with that, saying that Iran doesn't have any reason to enrich above 3.67 percent. And then the very next day, he took a more maximalist position, and he posted this on the platform X. I want to read a little bit of -- of this tweet, if you will. He said that Iran needs to eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program. So it's very clear there, we think, that Iran should not have a nuclear program altogether, according to Witkoff.

The Iranians then came out and said that that was a contradictory and conflicting position. So that's where we are going into these talks. The baseline, what we've heard from President Trump, is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. And that was echoed again today by the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: The President's made clear Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. That is not going to happen. We're hoping that talks continue and that they're fruitful and that they're -- that they can lead to something. We would all prefer a peaceful resolution and a lasting one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: But, Pamela, that does not answer the question about whether Iran can maintain some kind of nuclear program. And there's an added element in all of this. Before Witkoff goes to Rome tomorrow, he's meeting with the Israelis in Paris today, a top aide to Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose name is Ron Dermer, and David Barnea, who's the head of Mossad.

And they will certainly be trying to convince the American side to not allow Iran to maintain any kind of nuclear program at all. Pamela?

BROWN: All right, Alex, thank you so much.

[11:18:43]

And up next, under the administration's new immigration policy, some of the youngest and most vulnerable in the system may also be hit the hardest. Children, some too young to even speak, forced to go to deportation court alone. A Situation Room special report, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: As the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia becomes a flashpoint in the administration's new immigration policies, CNN has new reporting on another impact of Trump's strategy, major funding cuts, which have left many undocumented children to face their deportation proceedings alone. Here's Priscilla Alvarez with the Situation Room special report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

EVELYN FLORES, MANAGING PARALEGAL CHILDREN'S PROGRAM, AMICA CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS (through translation): They had to cross the border of Mexico and the United States.

ALVAREZ (voice-over): This story time starts at the U.S. southern border. It's a tale for children who crossed into the United States alone and are in government custody.

Fulanito, a cartoon cat, is supposed to represent them. The lesson, almost impossible to imagine for a child, how to navigate the U.S. immigration system alone.

FLORES (through translation): A very important right that Fulanito has now that he is in the United States is the right to go to immigration court.

ALVAREZ (voice-over): Evelyn Flores of the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights gives this presentation to kids in custody weekly. And she's not alone. Legal service providers serve a critical role for unaccompanied kids, whether preparing for court or getting ready for school.

Now, those lessons are taking on added significance amid concerns that children will be stripped of the very legal services they need.

ALVAREZ: This image that you share in your storytelling could be all a child has to get through their immigration proceedings.

FLORES: Yes.

ALVAREZ (voice-over): The termination of a federal contract for legal services has left organizations like Amica scrambling, and the thousands of children they and others serve potentially facing deportation proceedings alone.

[11:25:05]

Without attorneys, advocates say, kids don't stand a chance.

SCOTT BASSETT, MANAGING ATTORNEY, CHILDREN'S PROGRAM, AMICA CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS: The system is just too complicated for a child to succeed alone without an attorney. To ask a 12-year-old to do that without the support of an adult, much less one trained in the complicated world of immigration law, it's just not feasible. It can't happen.

ALVAREZ (voice-over): A child's deportation proceedings start shortly after they cross into the United States, similar to an adult.

WENDY YOUNG, PRESIDENT, KIDS IN NEED OF DEFENSE: I was in a court last summer where a 3-year-old was in proceedings. He played with his toy car in the aisle of the courtroom until he was called, and then a young woman picked him up and brought him to the front of the courtroom.

I knew that child knew something dramatic was about to happen. He started crying. He was inconsolable at that point.

ALVAREZ (voice-over): Under U.S. law, immigrants don't have a right to counsel at the government's expense, not even children, leaving them to depend on volunteer lawyers or NGOs.

YOUNG: Federal support is everything. Without those monies, we would probably see more like 90 percent of these kids going through proceedings without counsel.

ALVAREZ (voice-over): In March, the Trump administration cut off federally funded legal services for 26,000 unaccompanied children in the United States, prompting lawsuits. A federal judge has since ordered the administration to temporarily restore funding, but to date, that hasn't happened.

The uncertainty has led to staff layoffs and disrupted legal services for kids. As the administration cracks down on immigration, experts argue that taking away attorneys will only hurt efforts to get migrant kids to court.

BASSETT: The dinosaur and the unicorn --

ALVAREZ: OK.

BASSETT: -- are huge hits.

ALVAREZ (voice-over): Organizations who work with migrant children often have to get creative to get the kids to open up. Children often color as they share why they fled their home countries and get acquainted with attorneys.

BASSETT: They get thrown off the walls --

ALVAREZ (voice-over): Or they play with stress balls. One group in Michigan even has toy court sets for one-on-one legal screenings with kids.

YOUNG: We'll have toddlers running all over the place, and my staff is explaining to them using toys, crayons, chalkboards, what their rights are in the immigration system. And it's both -- something that's both very poignant, it's very joyful, but there's also a tremendous sense of gravity to it.

ALVAREZ: It's a nursery school where the lesson is how to fight your deportation proceedings.

YOUNG: That's exactly right.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

BROWN: Wow, Priscilla, really eye-opening, that reporting. So a judge's order mandated the funding be restored, but that hasn't happened. Is the administration just openly defying the court order here?

ALVAREZ: Temporarily restored. It was a moment of relief for these many organizations, 89 of them actually, who provide these services, but they haven't seen that money flow through again, which means that they are currently laying off staff.

I have spoken with attorneys who are preparing and talking to counsel about withdrawing from cases ethically, cases of young children who they say are going to have to go through this process alone, a process, by the way, Pamela, that is stacked against them.

The point of the Department of Homeland Security in these hearings, they are there to make the case that this child should be removed from the country. So what we are talking about here are children sitting at a bench alone, sometimes their feet can't even touch the ground, having to respond to DHS and an immigration judge.

I will also note that over the course of this reporting, what we learned is that these children are also being put on expedited dockets. We've seen this before with families. I have never seen it before with children, unaccompanied children, which is to say that now their immigration cases are being sped through the system so that they have to be resolved in a matter of weeks.

Sometimes these things take months or years. So if they don't have an attorney, they have to find all the evidence for their case. They have to know how to fill out the forms to at least stand a chance to defend against deportation.

So this has been, for all these legal service providers, a really frightening time and one that they have not seen since the TVPRA, that law passed on a bipartisan basis by Congress in 2008.

BROWN: Wow. Eye-opening. Thank you, Priscilla.

All right, let's get some more reaction. Now we're joined by Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan. I want your reaction to Priscilla's piece here. How concerned are you by the prospect of thousands of migrant children navigating their deportation proceedings without legal representation now that this funding hasn't been restored yet, despite a judge's order?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): Pam, I'm very worried. It's good to see you. But I remember in the previous Trump administration visiting a Christian foster adoption agency here in Michigan that was trying to help these children who had been separated from their parents. And the stories then were horrific.

[11:29:43]

Now, why are these children here? The story I remember from his first term was a mother who had sent her children to live with her -- their grandmother because she was beaten, being threatened, gangs were raping her. She was trying to earn money to send here and they got separated and they couldn't find anybody.