A Democratic Senator’s decision to personally intervene in a deportation case in El Salvador has sparked a heated debate about the limits of congressional diplomacy and the relevance of an ancient law. Senator Chris Van Hollen’s trip to advocate for deportee Kilmar Abrego Garcia has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans who accuse him of potentially violating the Logan Act – the same obscure statute once used against Trump aide Michael Flynn.
The 1799 law, created during tensions with France, prohibits unauthorized Americans from negotiating with foreign governments on matters involving the United States. While never successfully used in court, it frequently appears in political rhetoric when officials engage in unsanctioned diplomacy.
Van Hollen’s situation mirrors the Flynn controversy in reverse. Where Democrats once accused Flynn of Logan Act violations for speaking with Russia’s ambassador before taking office, Republicans now level similar charges against Van Hollen for his El Salvador trip. This partisan pattern highlights how the law often serves as a weapon rather than a serious legal tool.
Legal scholars note important distinctions in Van Hollen’s case. As a sitting Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, his foreign engagements carry more legitimacy than a private citizen’s might. Moreover, his office frames the trip as constituent service for Maryland’s Salvadoran community rather than an attempt to set foreign policy.
The controversy has prompted an ethics complaint alleging misuse of Senate resources, while constitutional experts debate whether applying the Logan Act to lawmakers might violate legislative privileges. The Biden administration’s tepid response suggests discomfort with Van Hollen’s actions without wanting to alienate a Democratic ally.
This incident underscores persistent questions about who speaks for America abroad, and where to draw the line between legitimate constituent service and improper diplomatic interference. As with past Logan Act controversies, the debate likely says more about current political divisions than about the 225-year-old law itself.
