Kash Patel's 'slinging margaritas' comments raise legal questions about gag order in Kilmar Abrego Garcia case

FBI Director Kash Patel could find his recent comments the focus of a civil court filing in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case out of Tennessee.

In August 2025, the man who assumed outsized importance in the Trump administration's immigration agenda asked U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr., a Barack Obama appointee, to issue a gag order against several officials – particularly then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

By October 2025, the court more or less ruled in the defendant's favor; an opinion and order made clear the court would enforce a local rule that "prohibits DOJ and DHS employees from making extrajudicial statements that will 'have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing' Abrego's right to a 'fair trial,'" assuming a trial occurs.

On Tuesday, Patel was engaged in a heated back-and-forth on Capitol Hill with Maryland's senior senator, Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat who made headlines last year by traveling to El Salvador to check in with Abrego Garcia and local officials after the man's family said they lost contact with him and were worried about his safety at CECOT, the notorious prison where Abrego Garcia alleges he was tortured.

The FBI director and the senator largely drew attention for trading barbs about one another's drinking habits but, amid the alcohol-themed allegations and recriminations, Patel seemingly made a reference to Van Hollen's time abroad on Abrego Garcia's behalf.

Van Hollen asked Patel about allegations of heavy drinking reported in The Atlantic, prompting Patel to dismiss the claims as "a total farce" and not credible "because you say so."

The senator replied that he was not the one making the claims, but rather repeating what has been "reported and documented." This prompted the FBI director to say Van Hollen was "literally saying it." Van Hollen, raising his voice, shot back and said: "No, I am saying that these are reports."

Patel then angrily said: "Unlike your baseless reports, the only person that was slinging margaritas in El Salvador on the taxpayer dollar with a convicted gang-banging rapist was you."

A few seconds of cross talk ensued in which Patel accused Van Hollen of running up a $7,000 bar tab and day-drinking before reiterating: "Allegations are false. You drinking margaritas on camera and with a gang-banger is true and on video."

After Van Hollen met with Abrego Garcia in April 2025, President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador posted a set of photos on X (formerly Twitter) with the caption: "Kilmar Abrego Garcia, miraculously risen from the 'death camps' & 'torture', now sipping margaritas with Sen. Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!🍹"

Van Hollen, for his part, later attempted to debunk the claim that either he or Abrego Garcia drank from the glasses purportedly containing the cocktails — and said the glasses were added partway through the meeting by El Salvadoran officials aiming for a photo op.

The senator also reiterated his debunking efforts on social media:

On Tuesday, NBC News reported Patel's comments as apparent references to Abrego Garcia and added that the onetime deportee "was not charged with or convicted of being a gang member or rape, but administration officials have accused him of being a member of the violent MS-13 gang, an allegation he has denied."

Politico similarly posted on X: "FBI Dir Kash Patel just called Kilmar Abrego-Garcia a convicted rapist, gang-banger and felon. There's pending criminal prosecution of Abrego-Garcia for alien smuggling in federal court in TN. Unaware of any convictions. There was a domestic abuse restraining order against him."

Attention soon turned to the gag order issued by Judge Crenshaw.

Legal journalist Adam Klasfeld raised the issue explicitly on X:

The court has previously prohibited "DOJ and DHS employees from making extrajudicial statements that will 'have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing' Abrego's right to a 'fair trial.'"

The court has also reiterated the prohibition as follows:

Employees of DOJ and DHS are hereby on notice that they are prohibited from making any "extrajudicial statement (other than a quotation from or reference to public records) that the [individual] knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by public communication that will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter, including especially that will interfere with a fair trial."

As the director of the FBI, Patel falls under the purview of the U.S. Department of Justice because the FBI is a principal agency within the DOJ. Therefore, the court's order likely does apply to him.

One outstanding question is whether or not Patel's comments were specific enough to refer to Abrego Garcia in a court filing.

In December 2025, then-Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino made the following statement on Fox News:

It's too bad that we have these activist judges that legislate from the bench and put MS-13 gang members back out on the streets to harm Americans. That's what we're doing in these American cities, are taking individuals like this, quote, Maryland Dad, out of circulation and putting them back where they need to be, and that's in their country of record.

Then, Bovino made the following statement on Newsmax:

We have an MS-13 gang member walking the streets. As you said, a wife-beater, but also, let's not forget, he was also an alien smuggler. So here's someone that wants immigration relief, he wants to, to leech off the United States, and thinks it's okay to do that.

In December 2025, Abrego Garcia's attorneys accused Bovino of violating the gag order and moved for sanctions — even though the Border Patrol officer never referred to their client by name.

Since then, motion practice has concluded on the matter, but the court has yet to rule on whether Bovino's statements are sanctions-worthy.

Another outstanding question is whether or not Patel's comments, or Bovino's comments for that matter, will be found to directly bear upon the likelihood of Abrego Garcia receiving a fair trial.

While history suggests such comments could lead to a court filing, there has not been any indication that such a filing is in the offing, and a ruling has yet to be made as to whether such comments are, in fact, verboten.

Law&Crime reached out to Abrego Garcia's attorneys in the Tennessee case for comment on this story, but no response was immediately forthcoming at the time of publication.