Politics in 2026 is a weird place. If you’ve been scrolling through social media lately, you’ve probably seen some pretty intense accusations flying around regarding Senator Chris Van Hollen and a dusty old statute called the Logan Act. It’s one of those things that sounds like a plot point from a political thriller, but it’s actually a real law from the 1700s that almost never gets used. Honestly, it’s mostly just used as a political baseball bat.
The current firestorm centers on Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen. Earlier in 2025, Van Hollen took a trip to El Salvador. He wasn't there for a vacation; he went to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who had been deported in what the administration later admitted was an "administrative error." While the Senator was just trying to check on a constituent and highlight a massive screw-up by ICE, critics—including folks like Roger Stone—instantly started screaming about the Logan Act. They argued that by going down there and talking to foreign officials about a deportation case, he was conducting "unauthorized diplomacy."
What Most People Get Wrong About the Logan Act
Before we get into the weeds of the Van Hollen drama, we need to talk about what this law actually is. The Logan Act was passed in 1799. It basically says that private citizens can't go off and negotiate with foreign governments on behalf of the United States without permission. The goal was to keep the country speaking with "one voice."
Here is the thing: nobody ever gets convicted under this law. In over 200 years, there have been exactly two indictments and zero convictions. It’s what lawyers call a "dead letter." It’s legally "on the books," but in practice, it’s a ghost.
Why is it being brought up now? Well, it’s a great way to make a political opponent look like a traitor without actually having to prove a crime. We saw it with Michael Flynn in 2017, and now we’re seeing it with Van Hollen. The logic is simple: if you don’t like what a politician is doing abroad, you call it a Logan Act violation. It sounds serious. It sounds legal. But most of the time, it’s just noise.
The El Salvador Trip and the Logan Act Allegations
When Van Hollen landed in El Salvador in March 2025, the tension was already high. He was there to advocate for Abrego Garcia, a father of three who had lived in Maryland legally for years before being swept up in a raid. The Trump administration eventually acknowledged the deportation was a mistake, but they weren't exactly rushing to bring him back.
Van Hollen’s visit was definitely bold. He held press conferences, he called out the Salvadoran government for violating international law, and he eventually got a face-to-face meeting with Garcia.
✨ Don't miss: The Lawrence Mancuso Brighton NY Tragedy: What Really Happened
The Argument Against Him:
Critics say a U.S. Senator shouldn’t be acting as a "private envoy." They argue that by pressuring the Salvadoran Vice President, Félix Ulloa, Van Hollen was interfering in the official foreign policy of the Executive Branch. Roger Stone even tweeted that the FBI should arrest him the moment he touched back down on U.S. soil.
The Reality of the Law:
The Logan Act specifically says it doesn't apply to citizens seeking "redress of any injury." Since Van Hollen was acting on behalf of a constituent to fix a government error, his legal team (and most constitutional scholars) argue his actions were totally protected. Plus, Senators travel on "CODELs" (Congressional Delegations) all the time. Meeting foreign leaders is literally part of the job description.
The Netanyahu Conflict: Another Layer of Controversy
It’s not just El Salvador, though. Van Hollen has been one of the most vocal critics of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. In late 2024 and throughout 2025, he led several efforts to pause offensive weapons shipments to Israel, citing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
In September 2025, Van Hollen and Senator Jeff Merkley released a massive report after visiting the Gaza border and the West Bank. They used some incredibly strong language, accusing the Netanyahu government of implementing a plan for "ethnic cleansing."
When you start using words like that, the political daggers come out. Some of his detractors tried to loop these actions back into the Logan Act conversation, suggesting that by coordinating with Palestinian civil society leaders and foreign officials in Jordan and Egypt, he was trying to subvert the President's foreign policy.
But again, there's a huge difference between "disagreeing with the President" and "violating the Logan Act." In the U.S. system, Congress has a specific role in foreign policy—especially when it comes to spending money and approving weapons. Van Hollen isn't acting as a private citizen; he’s acting as a high-ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
🔗 Read more: The Fatal Accident on I-90 Yesterday: What We Know and Why This Stretch Stays Dangerous
Why the Logan Act Won't Go Away
You might wonder why we keep talking about a law from 1799 if it’s never used.
- It’s a Narrative Tool: It’s much more effective to say "He violated the Logan Act" than "I disagree with his stance on immigration."
- The DOJ Keeps it Alive: The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) actually released a memo in late 2020 (re-circulated in 2025) stating that the law is still constitutional and enforceable.
- Political Retaliation: Both sides do it. Democrats invoked it against Michael Flynn; Republicans are now invoking it against Van Hollen. It’s a cycle of "whataboutism" that doesn't seem to have an end date.
Is Van Hollen Actually in Trouble?
In a word: No.
The chances of a sitting U.S. Senator being prosecuted under the Logan Act are basically zero. To get a conviction, a prosecutor would have to prove that Van Hollen had the specific intent to "defeat the measures of the United States." Given that the administration admitted the deportation of his constituent was an error, Van Hollen can easily argue he was trying to uphold the law, not defeat it.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has set a very high bar for restricting the speech of public officials. If the DOJ actually tried to bring charges, they’d likely run into a First Amendment buzzsaw.
What This Means for the Future of Diplomacy
The real danger isn't that Van Hollen will go to jail. The danger is that the threat of the Logan Act becomes a "chilling effect" on oversight. If every time a Senator goes abroad to investigate human rights or a botched deportation they get threatened with arrest, they might stop going.
And honestly? That’s probably the point.
💡 You might also like: The Ethical Maze of Airplane Crash Victim Photos: Why We Look and What it Costs
The Logan Act has become a weapon of intimidation. Whether you like Van Hollen’s politics or not, the idea that a member of Congress shouldn't be allowed to talk to foreign leaders is a pretty radical departure from how the U.S. government has functioned for two centuries.
Actionable Insights: How to Navigate the Noise
If you’re trying to keep track of these headlines without losing your mind, keep these three things in mind:
- Check the "Authority": The Logan Act only applies to people acting "without authority." A Senator traveling on official business almost always has the legal authority to be there.
- Look for the "Intent": Disagreeing with a policy isn't the same as trying to "defeat" it. If a Senator says, "I think this policy is bad," that's protected speech.
- Follow the Results: If you see a headline saying someone "could face 3 years in prison" under the Logan Act, check back in a month. You’ll find that exactly zero legal action has been taken.
The "Logan Act Van Hollen" saga is a perfect example of how 18th-century law meets 21st-century outrage. It’s less about the courtroom and more about the court of public opinion.
For those following the Abrego Garcia case, the story actually had a resolution. After the "torturous nightmare" of his deportation, the federal courts eventually forced the administration to bring him back to Maryland in August 2025. Van Hollen was there to meet him. Whether you think the Senator overstepped or not, the "administrative error" was fixed, and the Logan Act went back to sleep in the law books, waiting for the next political fight to wake it up again.
To stay informed, you can monitor the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's official reports on CODEL travel or check the Department of Justice's recent OLC opinions for any changes in how they interpret 18th-century statutes.