Senator Van Hollen's trip to El Salvador is being criticized for violating a law

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen is at the center of a controversy following his unexpected trip to El Salvador to intercede for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man deported from the United States. The visit has raised questions from conservative sectors that point to a possible violation of the Logan Act, a federal statute that prohibits U.S. citizens from engaging in diplomacy without government authorization.

The law, in effect since 1799, expressly prohibits individuals outside the executive branch from seeking to influence the decisions of foreign governments during disputes with the United States. Although it has rarely been applied, it has been invoked at key moments of political tension.

Criticism and comparisons with the Flynn case

Coglianese criticized Van Hollen's action and recalled that the same law was cited in the case of General Michael Flynn, who had contact with the Russian ambassador before the start of the president's term. Although Flynn was not tried explicitly for violating the Logan Act, the episode led to an FBI investigation that ultimately scuttled his political career.

"Why hasn’t this U.S. senator been arrested for violation of the Logan Act?" Stone wrote on social media, as Coglianese read the text of the law on his show and raised a direct comparison to the scandal surrounding Flynn.

Call for formal investigation

The conservative group American Accountability Foundation (AAF) asked the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Van Hollen's travel. In a letter addressed to Senator James Lankford, chairman of the committee, Thomas Jones, a representative of the organization, argued that Abrego Garcia represents a threat as part of "transnational gangs" and questioned the senator's attempt to intervene in his immigration status.

A political rather than legal recourse

Despite the uproar, no citizen has been successfully convicted under the Logan Act since it was enacted. Even those who defend its existence admit that its application is more symbolic than practical.

For now, Van Hollen's trip continues to raise more political than legal questions, in a context where the lines between official diplomacy and political activism are blurred.