Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is now facing serious legal questions following a controversial trip to El Salvador, where he reportedly interacted with Abrego Garcia — an individual previously deported by the Trump administration due to alleged ties to MS-13, unlawful residency in the U.S., and domestic abuse allegations.
Concerns have emerged over whether Van Hollen’s actions may have violated the Logan Act, a centuries-old federal statute that bars private citizens — including public officials acting without proper authorization — from negotiating with foreign governments. His meeting with Garcia, which included moments captured on video showing the senator drinking margaritas and allegedly criticizing Salvadoran officials, has drawn attention for potentially breaching this law.
Originally enacted in 1799, the Logan Act was created to prevent unauthorized diplomacy, after then-Senator George Logan independently negotiated with France during a tense period of U.S.-French relations. The law prohibits U.S. citizens from engaging with foreign officials to influence foreign policy or disputes involving the United States, without formal U.S. government consent.
On a recent broadcast, WMAL radio host Vince Coglianese analyzed the senator’s actions in light of the Logan Act. He noted that the law remains active and relevant today, stating:
“The Logan Act makes it a federal offense for any American to communicate with a foreign government with the intent to influence that government’s stance in disputes with the U.S., without being authorized by the United States.”
Coglianese also referenced the high-profile use of the Logan Act by Democrats during the early days of the Trump administration, particularly in the controversy involving General Michael Flynn. Flynn, then the incoming National Security Advisor, was scrutinized for conversations with foreign diplomats. However, Coglianese highlighted a key distinction:
“Flynn was working in line with the President-elect’s transition agenda. He wasn’t going against U.S. interests — he was preparing to serve the administration chosen by voters.”
By contrast, Coglianese argued that Van Hollen’s conduct appears to represent a more clear-cut instance of potential legal overreach:
“This seems like a textbook case. Chris Van Hollen was not authorized to speak on behalf of the U.S. government in that context. It looks like a direct violation of federal law.”
As scrutiny over the senator’s visit continues, legal experts and lawmakers alike are likely to weigh in on whether his conduct amounts to a prosecutable offense — or merely a controversial misstep abroad.
