The post claims the U.S. government now intends to deport Abrego Garcia to Liberia by Oct. 31.

1. What the government filed — the narrow, documented claim

Justice Department and DHS filings in federal court state that Liberia has been designated as a country of removal for Kilmar Ábrego García and assert that, based on that designation and diplomatic arrangements, he could be removed "as soon as Oct. 31." ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

2. How multiple outlets reported the same filing

The Associated Press, New York Times, CBS, ABC, LA Times and several other outlets carried the DHS/Justice Department filing language, all noting the government's statement that deportation could happen as soon as Oct. 31 — demonstrating broad reportage of the government's expressed intent rather than a unilateral media invention. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

3. The government’s rationale and the diplomatic framing

DHS and Justice Department papers describe Liberia as "a thriving democracy" and emphasize English as its national language and a constitution "providing robust protections for human rights," arguing those diplomatic assurances address safety concerns and permit third‑country removal. ^{[1] [5] [6]}.

4. The defense, critics, and alternative positions

Abrego García’s attorneys say the Liberia plan is punitive, cruel and unconstitutional, argue he has no ties to Liberia, note Costa Rica offered to accept him as a refugee, and warn that Liberia must guarantee it will not send him onward to El Salvador; his lawyers also point to his prior 2019 immigration protection finding that acknowledged a "well‑founded fear" of gang violence in El Salvador. ^{[5] [2] [7]}.

5. Legal context and unresolved court questions

The proposed Liberia removal comes amid ongoing litigation stemming from a mistaken March removal to El Salvador and later court rebukes and orders to facilitate his return; courts are weighing constitutional and statutory challenges to the government's second‑removal efforts, and several outlets emphasize that Abrego García is litigating the plan even as DHS moves forward. ^{[6] [2] [7]}.

6. Practical obstacles and prior attempts with other countries

Reporting notes earlier attempts to place Abrego García in Uganda, Eswatini and Ghana apparently failed and that Liberia was identified only after those efforts; media accounts cite U.S. officials and ICE witnesses saying other nations declined to accept him before Liberia agreed on a "humanitarian and temporary basis." ^{[8] [9] [6]}.

7. Timeline realism and what "could be deported" means

News outlets faithfully echo the government phrase that he "could be deported as soon as Oct. 31," which reflects an operational window or capability asserted by DHS rather than an absolute, irreversible deportation on that date; given pending court challenges and diplomatic prerequisites noted by both sides, the Oct. 31 timeframe is a government estimate and not a guaranteed outcome. ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

8. The bigger picture — politics, messaging and possible motives

Coverage uniformly places the move within a broader Trump administration push to expand third‑country removals and to demonstrate firm enforcement after the earlier mistake that sparked judicial criticism, while critics argue the Liberia option functions as political theater that imposes maximum hardship on a man with U.S. family ties; both the government’s desire to carry out orders and the defense’s constitutional argument are clearly laid out in reporting. ^{[2] [5] [6]}.

Bottom line

Contemporary mainstream reporting shows the U.S. government has filed that Liberia has agreed to accept Kilmar Ábrego García and that DHS expects it could remove him "as soon as Oct. 31," but that expressed government intent is contested in court, has known diplomatic and legal contingencies, and is being actively litigated by his attorneys. ^{[1] [2] [3]}