In late April 2025, Maryland’s senior U.S. Senator, Chris Van Hollen (D), became the focus of a growing legal and political controversy. The senator traveled to El Salvador to advocate for the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national deported by U.S. authorities for alleged membership in the transnational gang MS-13. Van Hollen’s trip—conducted without approval from the State Department or the White House—has triggered scrutiny under the Logan Act (1799), a rarely enforced federal statute prohibiting unauthorized American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments over matters involving U.S. policy.

Critics argue that Van Hollen’s actions constitute an overreach of congressional authority and amount to an unsanctioned diplomatic mission—an area traditionally reserved for the executive branch. Supporters counter that, as an elected legislator responsible for constituent advocacy, the senator acted within the bounds of long-standing congressional prerogatives. The incident has reignited debate over constitutional boundaries in the realm of foreign affairs, the viability and enforceability of the Logan Act, and the possibility of a partisan double standard highlighted by the earlier investigation of Michael Flynn.

This in-depth analysis will:

• Examine the circumstances and purpose of Senator Van Hollen’s El Salvador trip

• Explore the origins, statutory language, and enforcement history of the Logan Act

• Review relevant historical parallels, including the case of Michael Flynn

• Analyze the legal arguments supporting and opposing Van Hollen’s potential liability under the Logan Act

• Discuss the ethics complaint and political fallout

• Evaluate separation-of-powers concerns and constitutional protections

• Summarize the Biden administration’s response

• Assess Van Hollen’s defense and underlying motivations

• Consider likely outcomes and broader implications for U.S. diplomatic practice

I. Senator Van Hollen’s Unauthorised Mission to El Salvador

A. Background and Purpose of the Trip
Senator Chris Van Hollen, a senior Democrat and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, traveled to San Salvador in mid-April 2025. His publicly stated goal was to advocate on behalf of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national deported by U.S. immigration officials after being labeled an affiliate of the gang MS-13.

Abrego Garcia’s removal followed findings in U.S. immigration court that connected him to Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13)—a group the Trump administration had previously designated a transnational criminal organization, and which some officials characterized as quasi-terrorist. The deportation order cited witness testimony, intercepted communications, and alleged involvement in violent acts. However, Abrego Garcia’s family and legal advocates contend the evidence was largely circumstantial and assert that his due process rights were compromised.

Van Hollen’s office described the trip as a “constituent service mission,” undertaken in response to appeals from Maryland residents—particularly within the state’s sizable Salvadoran-American community—who argued the case merited reexamination. During the visit, the senator’s delegation reportedly held meetings with senior Salvadoran officials, including representatives from the Foreign Ministry and the Office of the President, to seek humanitarian reconsideration and explore avenues for judicial review within the U.S. immigration system.

B. Lack of Executive Branch Authorization

Unlike formal congressional delegations (CODELs) or sanctioned fact-finding missions coordinated through the State Department, Van Hollen’s trip was neither approved by the White House nor endorsed by the Department of State. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre later confirmed:

“The administration did not authorize or coordinate Senator Van Hollen’s trip. Immigration enforcement and diplomatic negotiations are conducted through established executive-branch channels.”

This statement fueled criticism from Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators, who argued that Van Hollen’s direct engagement with Salvadoran officials on a deportation matter amounted to unauthorized diplomacy—potentially implicating the Logan Act.

II. The Logan Act: Origins, Provisions, and Enforcement History

A. Historical Context and Statutory Text

Enacted in 1799 during the presidency of John Adams, the Logan Act (1 Stat. 613) was a direct response to Pennsylvania physician George Logan’s unauthorized mission to Revolutionary France. Acting without government sanction but carrying a letter from then–Vice President Thomas Jefferson, Logan met with French Foreign Minister Talleyrand in a bid to ease tensions during the Quasi-War. Concerned that such freelance diplomacy could undermine official U.S. policy, Congress swiftly passed legislation barring:

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly, [from commencing] or [carrying] on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government … in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States.”

Violations are punishable by fines and up to three years’ imprisonment. The statute’s core elements include:

• Actor: A U.S. citizen acting without authority (including public officials acting beyond the scope of delegated powers);

• Communication: Direct or indirect interaction with a foreign government or its agents;

• Intent: To influence foreign policy positions involving disputes with the U.S., or to subvert official government measures.

B. Enforcement Record

Despite its sweeping language and severe penalties, the Logan Act has never resulted in a conviction. Only one person—Kentuckian Francis Flournoy in 1803—was ever indicted, and even that case was dismissed before trial. In over two centuries, the statute has remained largely dormant, though invoked periodically in political discourse:

• 1984: Jesse Jackson’s freelance diplomacy in Syria prompted consideration of Logan Act charges by the Reagan administration.

• 2007: Speaker Nancy Pelosi faced Logan Act accusations after meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

• 2015: Forty-seven Senate Republicans were accused of violating the Act after writing a public letter to Iran’s leadership during nuclear negotiations.

• 2017: The FBI investigated General Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, initially flagging Logan Act implications.

Legal scholars broadly regard the Logan Act as a “dead letter,” noting its vulnerability to constitutional challenge under the First Amendment and the Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6), and pointing to a longstanding pattern of executive restraint in prosecuting potential interbranch violations.

III. The Michael Flynn Parallel and Partisan Dynamics

A. The Flynn Investigation

In December 2016, General Michael Flynn, then President-elect Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor, conducted phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak discussing, among other things, the possible rollback of sanctions imposed by the outgoing Obama administration. Internal FBI notes from January 4, 2017, revealed Vice President Joe Biden referencing the Logan Act as a potential avenue for prosecution.

Although the Department of Justice ultimately charged Flynn not under the Logan Act but for making false statements to the FBI, his case sparked a fierce political backlash. Flynn’s later withdrawal of his guilty plea and presidential pardon became a flashpoint in debates over selective enforcement and politicized investigations.

B. Accusations of Partisan Selectivity

Conservative commentators have drawn direct comparisons between Flynn’s prosecution and Van Hollen’s actions. Trump ally Roger Stone tweeted:

“Why has Senator Van Hollen not been arrested for violating the Logan Act? It’s illegal to conduct your own foreign policy.”

Radio host Vince Coglianese echoed the sentiment:

“Is Chris Van Hollen violating the Logan Act? This is exactly what they accused General Flynn of—unauthorized diplomacy before official transition.”

Critics argue that, just as Flynn was targeted for undermining U.S. sanctions policy, Van Hollen’s attempt to reverse an immigration order similarly challenges executive prerogatives. Democrats reject the analogy, pointing to significant distinctions: Flynn operated as a high-level national security advisor during a sensitive presidential transition, while Van Hollen’s actions were framed as constituent advocacy in a legislative context.

IV. Legal Analysis: Does Van Hollen’s Trip Violate the Logan Act?

A. Arguments for a Violation

• Unauthorized Diplomacy: Van Hollen engaged directly with foreign officials without formal executive authorization.

• Substantive Advocacy: His appeal sought to influence El Salvador’s actions concerning a deportee implicated in a matter of U.S. immigration enforcement.

• Potential Subversion: The senator’s efforts arguably undermined a legal action by the U.S. government—a “measure of the United States” as referenced in the Logan Act.

Proponents of enforcement argue these facts satisfy the statute’s textual requirements and suggest that Van Hollen knowingly acted outside the authorized diplomatic framework.

B. Counterarguments

• Congressional Authority: As a sitting U.S. senator and Foreign Relations Committee member, Van Hollen may invoke broad investigatory and diplomatic engagement powers.

• Constitutional Immunity: The Speech or Debate Clause may shield his actions if deemed part of his legislative duties.

• Dormant Statute: The Logan Act’s two-century history of non-enforcement suggests a tradition of prosecutorial restraint, particularly regarding elected officials.

• No Foreign “Dispute”: The deportation of Abrego Garcia stems from a domestic legal process—not a dispute or controversy between the United States and El Salvador—raising questions about statutory applicability.