Left: Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche listens during a news conference about Kilmar Abrego Garcia at the Justice Department, Friday June 6, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson). Right: Kilmar Abrego Garcia attends a protest rally at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in Baltimore, Monday, Aug. 25, 2025 (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough).
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has voiced strong opposition to Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s extensive demands for discovery, which they have labeled as “extraordinary and intrusive.” These demands come as Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported, seeks to support his claims of vindictive prosecution. The DOJ cautioned a federal judge that approving this broad search could cause “highly damaging” consequences, particularly if Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche is compelled to testify.
In a recent court filing, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, Robert McGuire, disclosed that Abrego Garcia had subpoenaed Blanche, who once served as a criminal defense attorney for President Donald Trump and is currently the DOJ’s second-in-command. This development followed U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s earlier finding of a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness” in the federal charges against Abrego Garcia. Crenshaw, appointed by Barack Obama, had reached this conclusion weeks prior.
Abrego Garcia was deported from Maryland in March and subsequently imprisoned in El Salvador at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). The Trump administration later acknowledged that his deportation resulted from an “administrative error” and was directed to “facilitate” his return. This return was executed in June, after federal authorities in Tennessee secured an indictment against him on charges related to “smuggling illegal aliens,” which allegedly stemmed from a 2022 traffic stop.
The defendant claims that the charges were retaliatory, a reaction to the “embarrassment” his habeas corpus lawsuit caused the government. In early October, Judge Crenshaw called for an evidentiary hearing, citing Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s appearance on Fox News as “remarkable” potential evidence supporting Abrego Garcia’s claims. Crenshaw highlighted Blanche’s statements that the case was pursued to bring Abrego back to the U.S. due to “an arrest warrant issued by a grand jury in the Middle District of Tennessee,” not because of any judicial order, suggesting possible evidence of vindictiveness.
Adding to the intrigue, a DOJ footnote has since revealed that Abrego Garcia’s legal team is not only seeking internal government documents and communications but has also issued subpoenas for Blanche and two other top officials to testify under oath in court.
A DOJ footnote has now revealed that Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, in addition to seeking discovery of “internal governmental documents and communications,” subpoenaed Blanche, along with two other top officials, to testify in court under oath:
Indeed, it is clear that Defendant is not content to stop with this discovery. On October 20, defense counsel subpoenaed the Deputy Attorney General, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General, as well as two HSI agents, to testify at the evidentiary hearing.
The Trump administration, the footnote added, will vigorously and swiftly move to “quash the subpoenas” for the reason that “top executive department officials should not, absent extraordinary circumstances, be called to testify regarding their reasons for taking official actions.”
McGuire, citing his own “sworn affidavit” that he was the “sole decision maker” behind the charges and wasn’t directed by anyone else to bring them, expressed concern about the implications of Crenshaw permitting “overbroad, legally improper, and highly damaging” discovery that aims to pry into “predecisional” and “deliberative” internal DOJ documents “that are plainly privileged.”
The acting U.S. attorney essentially stated Abrego Garcia’s vindictive prosecution claim is “meritless on its face” because the top prosecutor said so.
“[T]he relevant prosecutorial decision-maker, the Acting U.S. Attorney, has explained on the record that this prosecution was not brought for vindictive or discriminatory reasons, and even if the motives of other Executive Branch officials were relevant, their public statements about Defendant reflect punitive and public-safety concerns that are plainly consistent with a legitimate motivation to prosecute him,” the filing said. “The motion to compel should be denied.”
A separate footnote said McGuire is prepared to testify under oath.
The judge recently rescheduled the evidentiary hearing for Nov. 4 and 5, when Abrego Garcia’s legal team and the DOJ will square off for argument on “all” pending pretrial motions.
