Court hears testimony on delays and motives in smuggling prosecution
A federal court hearing Thursday focused on why prosecutors waited more than two years to charge Kilmar Abrego Garcia with human smuggling and whether the timing reflected improper pressure tied to his high-profile deportation history.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers are seeking dismissal of the prosecution. In court, they argued that the criminal case is vindictive and pushed by officials associated with President Donald Trump’s administration after the government was forced to bring him back to the United States following litigation over his removal.
Prosecutors, including First Assistant U.S. Attorney Rob McGuire, testified that the decision to charge was rooted in evidence and independent law-enforcement work, even as they acknowledged the delay was “extraordinary.” On cross-examination, McGuire agreed that the charges—filed based on a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee—came more than two years after the stop, and he said he had not previously been aware of it.
McGuire told the court that he saw body camera video of the traffic stop and believed it matched patterns from human smuggling investigations he had prosecuted before. He said the record he reviewed showed a car with nine passengers, no luggage, and additional factors he described as suspicious, including that the car belonged to someone with “a human smuggling background” and that the route appeared questionable.
The traffic stop video presented to the court showed a calm exchange between the Tennessee Highway Patrol officer and Abrego Garcia after the car was pulled over for speeding. The footage also reflected discussion among officers about smuggling suspicions, though the driver was ultimately allowed to continue with a warning.
McGuire said he stayed in contact with the deputy attorney general’s office about the investigation’s progress. He added that such contact is common in high-profile cases. He testified that he did not know whether updates were shared more broadly with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche or Attorney General Pam Bondi, and he said he was not told to shape the prosecution’s presentation. When pressed about potential pressure to prosecute, McGuire responded, “I’m not going to do something that I think is wrong to keep my job.”
Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent in Charge Rana Saoud testified that she first heard of the 2022 traffic stop in April 2025 after someone forwarded her a news article about Abrego Garcia from the Tennessee Star, a conservative online publication. She told the court that she initiated the investigation herself and said agents were not pressured from higher-ups. Saoud said, “If the facts did not add up, we would have ceased to move forward,” adding that “The case just kept getting stronger.”
Saoud also testified about why the case became high-profile. She agreed that the investigation was not high profile because of the nature of the criminal allegations, but because of who Abrego Garcia was at the time—saying he was “in the news all the time.”
Defense attorney David Patton argued that the case’s timing reflects a shift after court rulings and publicity. Patton said that a different HSI office in Baltimore knew about the traffic stop two years earlier, but did not bring charges and closed the investigation after Abrego Garcia was deported in March 2025. The defense said the investigation was reopened a month later after the Supreme Court decision related to Abrego Garcia’s deportation, and that by the time McGuire became aware of the stop, federal agents in Baltimore had already interviewed the car’s owner.
According to McGuire’s testimony, Jose Hernandez Reyes—who was incarcerated at the time—told agents he had run a smuggling operation with Abrego Garcia as a driver. McGuire said that on the same day he learned about the traffic stop from Saoud, Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh emailed him asking to meet about Hernandez Reyes’ testimony. McGuire testified that he then emailed Singh regularly with updates on the indictment’s progress.
The hearing also took place against the backdrop of prior rulings by U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw. The judge previously found some evidence suggested the prosecution “may be vindictive,” saying statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern.” In particular, the judge pointed to a statement by Blanche that appeared to suggest the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys and prosecutors have been sparring for months over whether other officials, including Blanche, must testify at the hearing and over what internal emails the Department of Justice must turn over. McGuire has argued that he alone decided to prosecute and that other officials’ motives are not relevant to the case, while Crenshaw reviewed disputed documents and later wrote in an order unsealed in late December that some materials suggest the decision to prosecute may have been a joint one rather than made by a single person.