The high-profile immigration case of Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia has triggered a wave of oustings and resignations at the Justice Department, clearing the way for the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation policies.
Abrego Garcia’s legal battles have dominated headlines for months, spotlighting how far the Justice Department is willing to go to enforce President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration agenda—even if it means removing career officials who might internally resist.
In Maryland, veteran DOJ prosecutor and then-acting deputy director of the Office of Immigration Litigation, Erez Reuveni, was placed on indefinite leave and subsequently fired after conceding to U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis that Abrego Garcia had been deported to El Salvador due to an “administrative error.”
Reuveni had received prior commendations during Trump’s first term, making the firing a clear signal of zero tolerance for internal dissent.
Reuveni’s supervisor, August Flentje, was also placed on leave, as Fox News reported.
Both men had testified that Abrego Garcia’s removal had violated a prior withholding of removal order granted in 2019. Robert Cerna, acting field director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, confirmed in sworn testimony that Abrego Garcia had been sent on a third flight to El Salvador in error. Cerna’s current status at DHS remains unclear.
The shakeup continued months later in Tennessee. Ben Schrader, a 25-year DOJ veteran and chief of the Criminal Division for the Middle District of Tennessee, abruptly resigned the same day the department secured an indictment against Abrego Garcia on two charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop.
The indictment was handed down while Abrego Garcia remained detained in El Salvador, with DOJ lawyers telling a Maryland federal judge he would “never step foot” on U.S. soil. He was returned to the U.S. in early June, and criminal charges were then unsealed.
Schrader did not publicly elaborate on his resignation, though reports linked it directly to the department’s handling of Abrego Garcia’s case. The departures highlight the Trump Justice Department’s willingness to push out officials who question policy decisions or fail to aggressively defend controversial actions in court.
Federal judges overseeing Abrego Garcia’s cases have expressed growing skepticism toward DOJ practices. Some judges have accused government attorneys of acting in bad faith, defying court orders, and engaging in evasive or “lawless” behavior. Judge Xinis, who previously criticized DOJ actions as a “willful and bad faith refusal to comply” with court orders, chastised department attorneys for destroying the presumption of regularity in proceedings.
Abrego Garcia’s case underscores the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement: a zero-tolerance policy backed by internal purges and heightened judicial scrutiny. The departures of career officials, coupled with aggressive courtroom postures, make clear that the Justice Department under Trump is fully committed to executing his deportation agenda, regardless of internal dissent or prior precedent.
As Abrego Garcia’s legal battles continue, the case serves as a flashpoint for the tension between executive authority, career prosecutors, and the judiciary. The Justice Department’s recent moves signal an era where policy compliance takes precedence over institutional caution, raising questions about how far the administration is willing to push to meet its immigration goals.
