Dems Defend Maryland Deportee & GEC Operation Ends | 4.18.25

We're learning more about the background of an El Salvadoran citizen deported by the

Trump administration.

Rayo Garcia's wife petitioned for an order of protection against him for two instances

of domestic violence in May of 2021.

Why are Democrats and the media fighting for his return?

I'm Daily Wire editor-in-chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe.

It's Friday, April 18th, and this is Morning Wire.

The State Department announces that it's fully dismantled an agency accused of censoring conservative voices. And the UK's Supreme Court hands down a landmark ruling defining the word woman.
The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire.
Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know.
Support American farmers and ranchers today and make a positive impact while avoiding increasing costs and uncertainty from tariffs at good ranchers.com they deliver 100 locally sourced american beef chicken pork and more straight to your door good ranchers vacuum sealed individually wrapped cuts stay fresh in the fridge or freezer so you don't end up throwing away or wasting any delicious meat lock Lock in a secure supply of American meat at a steady price today. Subscribe now at goodranchers.com and get free meat for life and $40 off with code WIRE.
Good Ranchers, American meat delivered. As the Trump administration pushes forward with its deportation agenda, Democrats are fighting for the return of a deportee sent to El Salvador.
Daily Wire senior editor Cabot Phillips is here now with the latest, Cabot. So this case has really dominated the immigration discussion all week.
First, walk us through how this all started. So the story centers around Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old man who came to the U.S.
illegally in 2011. Back in 2019, Garcia was arrested by ICE for suspected ties to the MS-13 gang and given a deportation order.
However, a court ruled at the time that Abrego Garcia should not be sent to his home country of El Salvador because he might face potential threats from rival gangs there. Despite that deportation order, he remained in the country until he was arrested again by ICE in March and deported to El Salvador days later.
By April, the Supreme Court ruled that his return to El Salvador violated the previous court order that he be sent elsewhere and directed the White House to facilitate his return to America. For their part, the Trump administration conceded that it was a, quote, clerical error on their part, but that it was up to officials in El Salvador about whether he should be released or not.
All right, so yet another showdown between federal courts and the White House on immigration. And now we're seeing Democrat lawmakers get involved here as well.
Tell us about that. Right.
Democrats certainly used the incident to try and prove the Trump administration was being careless in their mass deportation efforts. They say Braco Garcia was a law-abiding father who never should have been deported in the first place.
As the story gained traction, a number of Democratic lawmakers vowed to go to

El Salvador to fight for his release. First up was Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen,

who appeared on MSNBC from El Salvador. Have a listen.

This is like taking away people's freedom. That does not sound like a conservative idea to me.

That is something that, of course, authoritarian governments engage in. And it's a very fast road to tyranny.
In response, the White House hosted Patty Morin, whose daughter Rachel was raped and murdered in Maryland by an illegal immigrant from El Salvador. She had a strong message for the lawmakers fighting to free Abrega Garcia.
To have a senator from Maryland who didn't even acknowledge or barely acknowledge my daughter and the brutal death that she endured fly to El Salvador to bring back someone that's not even an American citizen. I don't understand this.
And now the White House has pointed to a slew of evidence that Abrego Garcia has had some run-ins with law enforcement in the past. What do we know about that so far? Yeah, Democrats have depicted him as an upstanding citizen, husband and father, but new reports are painting a very different picture.
First, the DOJ released the police report from his initial arrest back in 2019. Those documents show that Abrego Garcia was found loitering with three other men, two of whom were previously convicted MS-13 members.
When officers approached, they attempted to hide drugs under a nearby car. At the time of his arrest, Abrega Garcia was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat.
That's important because authorities say it's a clear symbol of, quote, members in good standing with the MS-13. And then we learned that in 2021, Abrega Garcia's wife sought a protective order against him following years of alleged domestic abuse.
According to her sworn affidavit from the time, the wife alleges that at different times, Abrega Garcia punched her, leaving her with black eyes. He allegedly hit her with his work boots, scratched her eyes, and even drove erratically with her one-year-old in the car.
And that's not all. The Tennessee Star learned Wednesday that Abrega Garcia had been stopped by Tennessee Highway Patrol in 2022

on suspicion of human trafficking.

In that case, he had been pulled over with seven individuals in his car, but no luggage.

When questioned, he told officers he was driving them from Texas to Maryland on behalf of his, quote,

boss, who worked in, quote, construction.

Abrega Garcia was detained for two hours and was found to not have a valid driver's license, which is a misdemeanor. The officer in that case immediately contacted the FBI and informed them he was concerned Obrego Garcia was engaged in human trafficking.
But for unknown reasons, the FBI reportedly advised him to take photos of the passengers and then allow them on their way. Republicans say these stories are just further proof of Brigo Garcia should have been deported long ago.
Yeah, a lot of questions to be answered there for sure. Kevin, thanks so much for reporting.
Absolutely. What does the future hold for business? Ask nine experts, you'll get 10 different answers.
Can someone please invent a crystal ball? Until then, over 41,000 businesses have future-proofed themselves with NetSuite by Oracle, bringing accounting, inventory, HR, and financial management into one platform. With real-time insights, you're closing your books in days, not weeks.
Here at The Daily Wire, we're proud to partner with NetSuite because they're leading the way. Speaking of leading the way, download the CFO's guide to AI and machine learning at netsuite.com slash morningwire.
This guide is free to you at netsuite.com slash morningwire. Again, that's netsuite.com slash morningwire.
In 2011, the State Department created the Global Engagement Center designed to combat propaganda from hostile foreign groups. But after Trump's 2016 win, the department turned its attention to throttling Americans' political speech.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio put the final nail in the group's coffin. Here's what he told Ben Shapiro.
They started it by saying, you know, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, all these terrible groups are radicalizing people online. We should do something about it.
And, you know, back when they came up with that 12 years ago, whatever it was, people are like, you know, whatever makes sense. And then it metastasized.
And it's like, oh, there's foreign interference in our elections. We need to start going after that.
Well, then by 2020, it became a movement to go after voices inside of American politics. Joining us now is investigative reporter Luke Rosiak, who has been following the story closely.
So Luke, first off, what is the Global Engagement Center? Hi, Georgia. So the GEC was created in 2011 as the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications.
In 2016, Barack Obama gave it a new name and said it would, quote, coordinate U.S. government communications aimed at countering foreign terrorist propaganda, particularly from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.
But soon it was creating pressure on U.S. platforms via advertising boycotts to delete conspiracy theories like the idea that coronavirus came from a Chinese lab.
Like other State Department propaganda efforts, it was specifically barred from operating against Americans. But there's evidence that's exactly what it did.
When you look at things like the Twitter files, which showed how the Biden administration pressured Silicon Valley platforms to censor or remove content, one of the names that keeps popping up is GEC. The Dilly Wire and the Federalist actually sued the State Department, alleging that the GEC was violating the First Amendment by funding groups like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index.
The Global Disinformation Index put American media outlets on a, quote, dynamic exclusion list that was distributed to advertisers and named mainstream publications like the New York Post, Reason Magazine, and the Daily Wire and the Federalist as risky. NewsGuard's CEO said its goal is, quote, empowering governments to support quality journalism and systematically defund sources of harmful misinformation.
The Daily Wire argued that GEC was funding proxies to do what would obviously be illegal for the government to do. And GEC was extremely secretive.
It used a suspicious financial structure that hid the money flow and refused to provide info to Congress. So this agency is now gone? Yes, technically.
In fact, Congress let GEC expire last year after all the outrage. But Joe Biden moved those employees to a different group basically doing the same thing.
That's why Rubio has initiated a reduction of force for 50 positions working in that successor group. So not only is that group going to be gone, but those people will also be out of government instead of playing a shell game.
Well, it's like whack-a-mole. Luke, thanks for coming on.
Exactly. Thanks, Georgia.
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that in the eyes of the law, a woman is a biological woman, not a transgender woman. Joining us now from Europe to break down the ruling is Guy Dampierre of the Legatum Institute.
Guy, thanks for coming on. So how did this ruling come about? So the ruling is all about what constitutes a woman.
And it starts with the Scottish government. So the UK has a slightly unusual system of devolved governments.
So there are governments in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland who've got powers devolved to them from the main government in Westminster. And in Scotland, the Scottish nationalist government, which is very left wing, have been seeking to extend what they call trans rights.
The most controversial part of this is they've been pushing for the self-ID, which essentially allows somebody to declare that they are a woman and be recognised as a woman without any doctor being involved, without any surgery, without anything else at all. So that's very, very open to abuse.
And we've seen some bad cases as in the United States of individuals using that as a cover for sexual fetishes or for other things. Now, the particular argument here was about a new law to increase the number of women on public boards.
It's what Americans call affirmative action. In Britain, it's called positive action.
And it's allowed by something called the Equality Act. The Scottish government argued that this positive action should include transgender women, as long as they had a gender recognition certificate.
So they would be counted as women, and you would basically be allowed to hire more of them, even if they had lower standards, just to reach a 50-50 level. The campaign group for Women Scotland disagreed, and they said that this should be restricted only to biological women.
They've had a long court battle, there's been judicial reviews, they've won some things, they've lost some things, and it's finally gone all the way to the Supreme Court. And that court has now decided that the use of sex and the use of women in the Equality Act refers to biology and to biological women, which means that transgender women are not protected against discrimination as women, because they aren't women.
They are still protected against discrimination as people who've undergone gender reassignment, however. So a pretty significant ruling.
What will it actually mean in practice? It's going to be a very far-reaching ruling. Britain, much like the United States, this has been a really contentious topic over the last few years.
There's been a huge battle. And in fact, the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, was famously once unable to say whether or not a woman has a penis.
He sort of flip-flopped on what he considers to be a woman. But at the same time, he's a former lawyer.
So this should hopefully be professionally clarifying. And I hope that going going forward he will now be able to confidently say that the law is clear that a woman is a biological woman what it means um in practice is that the gender recognition act which is the law in britain that covers transgender people is going to be pretty null because the law is now saying that sex is biological and not social that said transgender women who have a gender recognition certificate can still have all their legal documents describing their sex as female.
And as I understand it, it's discriminatory to ask somebody if they have a gender recognition certificate. So there may be some ways to undercut this ruling.
There may well be. The ruling has now gone out, and that is clarifying, but it's going to change a lot of things.
So as the Supreme Court said, Parliament is going to have to legislate to deal with those issues, including the fact that the Gender Recognition Act has now basically been superseded and will need to be amended in some way, probably. We just have to hope within that that the current Labour government will recognise biological reality.
The danger is that the party is very split on the issue. On the other hand, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been very clear that the law now says that single sex spaces must be based on biological sex.
So I think there'll probably be a battle within the government over the next few years about this, and they're going to have to legislate. But that legislation will be very controversial.
And we can also expect to see legal challenges from left-wing activist groups. I think the hope has to be that we've hit peak trends, that the vibe has shifted, that the tide is beginning to roll back against the madness we've seen over the last decade.
There have been a lot of scandals recently in Britain because people looked into the clinics that were dealing with transgenderism, and they were encouraging children to have life-altering surgery and not really giving them all the information, not really letting them understand that these were completely life-changing operations. And for most people, while some people do have real confusion over their sex, most people actually just get over it and it turns out it's not a real issue at all.
So we have to hope that if the vibe has somewhat changed, that this sort of irresponsible push for vulnerable people and vulnerable children to change sex will decrease and that there will be an admission that this is something that's biologically impossible.

Let's hope that the culture catches up to that.

Well, historically, the UK has been a few years ahead of us on this issue, so maybe it will here.

Guy, thanks so much for coming on.

My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

Thanks for waking up with us.

We'll be back this afternoon with more news you need to know.