Sarah Longwell (4:14)

Ms. The Supreme Court made their ruling last night very clear that it's the administration's responsibility to facilitate the return, not to effectuate the return. I believe the Department of Justice just filed another brief in the lower court. I would defer you to that for any updates.

Andrew Egger (4:31)

And then Donald Trump clarified that a little bit yesterday on Truth Social. He said because Bekele is coming on Monday to meet him at the White House. He said, looking forward to seeing President Bukele of El Salvador on Monday. Our nations are working closely together, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. President Bukele has graciously accepted into his nation's custody some of the most violent alien enemies of the world, and in particular, the United States. These barbarians are now in the sole custody of El Salvador, a proud and sovereign nation. And their future is up to President B and his government. They will never threaten or menace our citizens again. Just one point on that, because that really does just, in so many words, illustrate the ridiculous kind of like song and dance that they're doing here. Because Trump is saying, you know, the Supreme Court has said that we need to try and go get this guy back, but unfortunately, it's not up to us. It's up to Bukele whether or not we're gonna get him back. And we're never gonna get him back. He says it there. Bukele doesn't say, they will never threaten or menace our citizens again. Trump says that. I mean, Trump is already giving away the fact that Bukele is not giving it back because Bukele knows that in his own heart of hearts, Trump doesn't want him back. So this is. I mean, we are already, like, they're trying to pretend that this is all just kind of like legal wrangling and. And just sort of like their interpretation, and they're trying to follow the Supreme Court's ruling, but it is complete horseshit. I mean, they are. They are out here preparing to. We will see whether. Whether this changes by Monday or by Tuesday or this upcoming week. But every signal that we're getting out of the White House right now is that they are prepared to defy at least the spirit and basically also the letter of what the Supreme Court ruled last week.

Sarah Longwell (6:03)

So here's my next question, because if. If you were, I don't know, a halfway decent person who cared about the competency of our country or. And who cared about basic human decency. Right. If you were like, man, we got this wrong. We accidentally sent this guy and he wasn't supposed to be there, wouldn't you try to get him back just because it's the right thing to do? And if not, if that's obviously too, I guess, too high a bar to expect out of these people? Like, what is the reason for not, though, is it that he doesn't want? Is he really thinks this person's a bad guy and that we need, you know, him out of the country? Sorry for the bubbles. Or is he thinking to himself, like, I just can't admit a mistake. Like, we can't let this look like we did an oopsie here.

Andrew Egger (6:51)

Yeah. From. From the point of view of the administration, it is a Little bit of both. So they are. They are, on the one hand, they. Ever since this story broke, they've been basically saying, yes, we were not supposed to deport this guy for administrative reason, but also, we're totally glad he's gone. He's an ms.13 gang member. We have all this intelligence saying he's actually super high up in MS.13. All of that stuff completely spurious, by the way. They have not given a shred of evidence to suggest that any of that is actually true. If you. If you run back the. The actual kind of like evidentiary chain of how it came to be the case that this guy ever got associated with MS.13 in the first place, it's on the word of some local cop who, who arrested him, who had insane reliability issues throughout his tenure, who's no longer a police officer, but is now doing contract work for these jokers, you know, in the immigration system. Like, there is no good reason to believe that this guy has ever been an MS.13, but that is the position of the government. So they, on the one hand, they're trying to kind of smear him personally in this way and trying to say that, yes, we weren't supposed to deport him, but we are sticking to the narrative that he is a dangerous person who's better out of the country. And I think unless underlying that is the second, more just generally strategic purpose, which is that this whole thing is built on moving quickly, having all of the momentum, you know, maximum ask for forgiveness rather than permission, but also don't really ask for forgiveness. I mean, like, they are building a system that has its own inertia, where the whole previous way that we dealt with people who are in our country illegally and processed, who gets to stay and who has to go back, all of that stuff has been just swept aside. You know, they're on the train and they're laying the track in front of the train, and the second that they start encountering resistance, the second that they start actually bouncing off of courts and actually having to accommodate themselves even to the Supreme Court, I mean, to any kind of outside strictures on what they can and can't do, the whole thing is kind of off the rails as far as what they're trying to do. As far. As. I mean, they truly are trying to roll out something here where they are accountable only to themselves and trying to sell that to the American people as well. These people are just gang members and terrorists and all that stuff anyway. And so you should just let us get away with this and kind of like, whether. Whether by actively supporting it or just by not really paying attention, just kind of being like, yeah, the administration's fighting the Supreme Court over all this. The administration's fighting, you know, these people's lawyers over all of this. Who really knows who's. Who's at fault? And I guess on net, I'm just glad they're dealing with the drug dealers and the. And the terrorists and the gang members. That's kind of the thing that they're trying to sell. And the second that they start actually getting punched back in a way that. That, you know, the law draws blood on them, the whole system starts to teeter a little more than they're comfortable with.

Sarah Longwell (9:32)

And so I was reading, and now, you know, there's multiple cases of erroneously shipping people who are here in the country to prisons, but there's also the gay makeup artist that has also been sent. I can't remember which case it is, that the judge was also saying it's not a state secret. Like, if you have evidence that These people are MS.13 or trend or whatever, like, bring it forward. And this is where. This is something I don't understand is they keep saying they have, like, classified evidence. Like, they know that there's evidence, but they're not showing it to anybody. It's the same. Same way with some of these people that they're deporting, the students, whatever. They're like, no, no, no. We've got evidence that they're really, you know, working for her, Moss or whatever. Like, are they just lying or are they not making it available to people? What is the deal?

Andrew Egger (10:25)

I never want to, like, accuse somebody of actively lying when it is not, like, crystal clear that they are active actively lying. But I think it is very pertinent that they are doing this not only about classified stuff, like. Like, some of this has been classified stuff. Some of this is like, yeah, we have intelligence reports about these guys that suggest. And this is the guy we've been talking about. Kilmar. Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He's. He's the guy who. They've said, no, we have intelligence that we're not gonna show you. But we know him to be high up in Ms. 13. But the guy you mentioned a second ago, Andre Hernandez, his story came out a few weeks before. They're corroborating evidence that they have not released. Isn't classified at all. They're saying they've seen social media posts of his that indicate he's in a gang. Well, you could release that there's no reason why you wouldn't. There's no national security secrets on this guy's Instagram or Facebook wall or whatever. And so that is where you really do get into, like, okay, well, like, show us the money or we will think you're lying. And also, you guys lie about other stuff all the time, constantly. So, like, why would we be giving you the benefit of the doubt here? But again, I think it gets back to what I was talking about a minute ago, where. Where they are fighting really hard against the idea that they have to prove anything to anybody in court ever at all. I mean, like, that's. That is the thing that, that is the through line to all of this strategy is not that, like, in theory, if they had this stuff, they could bring it before a judge and get this demonstrated. Right, Right. But they would not see that as a win because their whole goal is to short circuit that process and not have to go before a judge at all and just be able to, based on their own internal assessments, put people on these buses, planes, trains, whatever, and get them out of the country, throw them in prison in El Salvador. And that's the thing they're trying to sell the public on.

Sarah Longwell (11:59)

Yeah. And that. That actually, I mean, when you think about it, makes a ton of sense from their perspective, because what they're trying to do is fight hard on these early cases that they don't have to prove anything. Right. And if they can get away with saying, nope, we don't have to prove this, that sets a precedent for them to be able to continue to do this for the next three and a half years.

Andrew Egger (12:17)

Yeah. Yeah. Although what's. What is strange is that I have a hard time wrapping my brain around part of this. It almost feels like they've. They're kind of down a strategic cul de sac in the way that, that. That you describe. Because all this stuff with Kilmar, Abrego Garcia, now this guy who was mistakenly deported, who's already in El Salvador, they're fighting this total rear guard action that is basically all premised on the fact that he's already gone. But based on the Supreme Court's ruling, there are several judges who have already issued, you know, further stays on extremely solid legal grounds based on what the Supreme Court just said, that the Trump administration can't send any more people there without giving them due process. So it's not. It's really not clear to me, like, if they were to win the, The. The. Even if they were to kind of, like, get away with this horrible Horrible thing of the guys that they already sent on this national security pretext that we physically lack the power to get them back sort of as a nation, which, again, is insane. I can't believe we're talking about this. But. But even if they were to kind of like, win that argument, it's not necessarily clear to me how that gets them any closer to deporting the hundreds of thousands or millions of people that they want to deport next. But, I mean, I don't know, like, I don't know if they're just not thinking quite that far ahead or if they just aren't, like I was saying before, aren't willing to give an inch for any reason on any of these people ever. I mean, the other thing is, like, it's a real problem for them if a guy comes back from the El Salvador torture dungeon, right, and is able to like, get on TV and say, what was what it was? I mean, like, they don't want that to happen, right?

Sarah Longwell (13:39)

Oh, yeah, that does it. That. That's. Of course, that makes total sense, right? This is a PR nightmare for them. It's not just like an oopsie. This guy comes back and he talks, right? Everybody wants to talk to him. He lands. He is surrounded by reporters where. And he is like, I am just a father. I was never part of MS.13. That cop was harassing me. And like, yeah, that's true. It's a huge black eye for the administration. I was thinking about it more like, you know, if they. If they went through the process of getting him back, that would. Then that would leave people with the idea that they actually wanted to get it right and they don't want to let anybody have that idea. But it is. It. It would actually be a huge problem for them if these guys come back, which I guess here's one more thing that I just wonder about as a regular old consumer of news. Can Democrats not fly to El Salvador and sort of make a more of a racket about this? Like, I understand actually why from a PR standpoint at the moment. So I was. Fox News was. Had like a headline. It was like, Dems trying to get dangerous. Bring dangerous Criminals back to the country. Right? That's what they. That's how they want to play this particular game. Because it's much harder to be like, yeah, well, yeah, they say he's a gang member. We say there's no evidence of that. Either way, the guy deserved due process because that's what we do here in the country. But I, I know listening to voters that, like, the second you say somebody's a gang member or part of Ms. 13, like, you lose mo. Most people are like, I'm not sure I care that much what happens to this person, but I do think, like, how are we? Well, I. So, like, maybe that's why Dems aren't doing it, but it feels like some Dems should, like, get on a plane to El Salvador and say. And make a ruckus is what Republicans did. All they did was like, go down to the border and stand there with cameras and like, dress in camo and cosplay like their border security. Should Democrats not go there and say, like, they're just deporting people, that they have no proof for criminals whatsoever?

Andrew Egger (15:33)

Yeah, I. So one caveat. I always, like, break out in a cold sweat whenever anybody asks me, like, the what should Dems do? Question. Just because, like, somewhat like you, I, I did not come up in those circles at all. I don't have like, the, the, the bedrock mental infrastructure for what Democrats under any circumstances. But, but I guess, I guess the Steel man argument for, for not necessarily participating in that is that you are correct that, that like, you're, you're worried about pr. Not necessarily in the way that you describe. Like, like, I don't, I don't think if I'm a Democrat, I'm necessarily worried, man, if I go down and do that, they're going to say that I love MS.13, although obviously they will. They will do that. They will say, you love Ms. 13. But even just from like kind of an, an objective outside, like, what's best for these people who are wrongfully detained sort of thing, I think that you want this to be a fight between Donald Trump and the law, not necessarily a fight between Donald Trump and congressional Democrats or whatever. You know what I mean?

Sarah Longwell (16:32)

I do.

Andrew Egger (16:33)

Like, if Democrats had some greater larger platform or whatever that was shining a light on this in a way that it wasn't having a light shown on it, otherwise that would be one thing. But I feel like part of the whole problem with Democrats right now is that their messaging apparatus is completely broken and it doesn't roll down the road. Right? And you're totally right that, like, people do sort of tune out like, well, okay, he's an MS.13 gang member. Why should I care about his rights? Or whatever. And that's why I think the conversation always needs to be, you need to prove that he's an MS.13 gang member. Like you said, he's an MS.13 gang Member. You think he's an MS.13 gang Person, shouldn't that be demonstrated to somebody's satisfaction, some immigration judge, some, you know, like literally any adversarial third party, to check that statement? And I don't know whether, whether Democrats getting involved helps that effort. I don't know whether it hurts that effort. But I think that needs to be the effort if there's, if you're going to sell the lawlessness of this to the public, which it's, you need to do, because it's totally lawless. And, and, and as many, many people have pointed out, the weird thing about getting rid of due process and, and, and saying it's irrevocable is like, yeah, he said you're an MS.13 gang member, but like, what if, what if he bundles you onto a plane next and says you're an MS.13 gang member? There's literally no checking that according to the administration's theory of the case. That's, I guess that's what I'd say to that.

Sarah Longwell (17:49)

Okay, last question. Maybe this is either an unfair question or maybe it's easier terrain for you as a, as a young conservative studying the conservative side. When he, if he finds a loophole. Right. That the court obviously doesn't intend, all nine of them said he had to facilitate the return. When he doesn't, does that not start to sour some of these Supreme Court justices on him a little bit? Like, isn't it dangerous for him to just ignore the Supreme Court?

Andrew Egger (18:18)

Yeah, I think he's playing with fire to a significant degree. I think that he should be pretty confident about his 6, 3 Conservative majority and their, you know, the home field advantage that three of whom he appointed, the home field advantage that that gives him in, you know, all the future stuff that's going to come before the court about stuff he's trying to do over the next four, over the next three and a half years. But at the same time, I almost feel like that piece of analysis is like a dispatch from a world where he is playing with any of the regular rules at all. Right. I mean, like, we have not gotten very much indication that, that Trump's strategy here is anything other than to basically dare the Supreme Court. I mean, it's what he does with everybody. Right? I mean, Trump's genius in worming his way up through the Republican Party all along has been that he will not let you remain neutral on the question of him. At bottom, like, he doesn't let other people in the government do balls and strikes on Trump. You have to be pro Trump or You have to be anti Trump. And if you're anti Trump, then he purges you from the Republican Party. And that's kind of how he has, you know, he picked one fight after another, got rid of everyone who was against him, and that's kind of where he is now. And that's just, that was somewhat political strategy, but it's also just the way he pursues everything. Right? I mean, it's just the way he goes. I don't want to say that's absolutely what's going to happen with the court, because he did have, you know, that one thing kind of was a little eyebrow raising over the weekend where he's like, yeah, if the Supreme Court tells me to go get a person back, I'm going to go get him back. I respect the Supreme Court. That was sandwiched between these two pieces of content that we already mentioned. Seeing that, that made it seem like, no, that's not happening at all. So who knows exactly how you take that? It's possible that Trump could be like, okay, this. On this one thing, the juice is not worth the squeeze to actually, like, maybe he backs away from the ledge and maybe the, Maybe the court is happier about it. Who knows? But he also might just keep daring John Roberts to, like, kind of stop giving him the inch of wiggle room. You know, John Roberts, being an institutionalist, he might be betting on, on the Roberts court essentially being, like, a little bit too fearful to really dig in its heels and really stop him on some of these things. And I don't know how that would go. I mean, I just. We're so far off the map of anything that has happened ever, at least in my lifetime, that, that, that it's just hard to even assess, you know, where the dominoes fall in a situation like that. I just, I, I would like to hope we will not get to it, but every, every kind of, again, every piece of information that we're getting right now certainly seems to be vectoring in that direction. So that's really cool. It's like a cool place. We are, as we come out of this weekend into what, what, what the hell's gonna happen on any of this stuff the next couple days? So I guess we'll find out.

Sarah Longwell (21:05)

Yeah. You mean, you mean that's cool and, like, this is definitely not cool.

Andrew Egger (21:10)

Yes. I'm not excited. I'm not, I'm not super eager. I guess. I guess we will have some kind of resolutions or maybe we won't. Maybe, maybe everything will just kind of march forward in this weird Half on, half off kind of way that plays to Trump's benefit because there are no clear rules and he just has so much room to maneuver. I don't know. I don't know what's gonna happen. I don. Supreme Court will respond to any of this, so. So we'll see.

Sarah Longwell (21:33)

Yeah, I don't know about that. What I do know is, like, the guy's in prison and so, like, there's a guy somewhere, and he either needs. He's either going to stay there or he's going to get brought back. And so there's going to be an outcome here.

Andrew Egger (21:45)

Yeah, that's a really good point. It's.

Sarah Longwell (21:47)

Well, Andrew, thank you for explaining that to me. I have been trying to get my head around all the back and forth. It's sort of like tariffs, though. Like, you know, I hit. There's. We. None of us, none of. None, none of us alone have the bandwidth to try to be smart about all of these things. So thank you for being smart on this issue, and thanks to all of you for watching another episode of Our Bulwark Takes. We will be back with updates on this tomorrow. So thanks, guys. We'll see you later.