DHS uses Alexandria arrest to make case against Spanberger's ICE order. Its own facts undercut the argument.

A man DHS describes as a confessed MS-13 gang member was arrested by federal agents at a federal immigration office 17 days before Spanberger took office. No state or local police were involved — the

The Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday issued a press release announcing the arrest of a man it describes as a confessed MS-13 gang member at a federal immigration office, using the case to argue that Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s executive order on immigration enforcement has “made Virginians less safe.”

But a review of DHS’s own account, public records, and the legal framework involved reveals that the arrest had nothing to do with state or local law enforcement, occurred more than two weeks before Spanberger took office, and could not have been affected by her executive order under any circumstances.

DHS did not respond to a request for clarification.

The underlying case, as DHS presents it, raises serious questions. A man who the agency says confessed to five murders while in federal custody avoided removal for nearly a decade — a failure that, by DHS’s own timeline, spans three presidential administrations. But the release uses those facts to build a political argument that its own account does not support.

The arrest was a federal operation, start to finish

According to the DHS release, Edwin Antonio Hernandez Hernandez, 27, of El Salvador, was arrested Dec. 31 at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services appointment after USCIS flagged his criminal history during vetting of his asylum and work authorization applications. USCIS coordinated with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which carried out the arrest.

DHS’s account describes no involvement by Virginia State Police, local deputies or local police officers. The entire chain — identification, referral and arrest — ran through two federal agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.

Spanberger did not take office until Jan. 17. Her executive order was signed that day.

The DHS release itself acknowledges this, stating that “ICE arrested Hernandez two and a half weeks before Spanberger’s executive order took effect.”

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin nonetheless called Hernandez one of “the criminals that Virginia’s new governor is protecting with her executive order halting cooperation with ICE.”

Where did the arrest actually happen?

DHS described the arrest as occurring “in Alexandria.” The USCIS Application Support Center that serves the Alexandria area is located at 8850 Richmond Hwy. — which is in Fairfax County, not the City of Alexandria.

The USCIS field office that handles asylum interviews is in Fairfax at 2675 Prosperity Ave., also not in Alexandria.

The distinction matters. The City of Alexandria has long maintained its own policy on immigration enforcement. The city’s website states that Alexandria law enforcement officers “do not participate in ICE raids or arrests to enforce immigration laws” and that the city does not provide ICE with “any office space, facilities or equipment.” That policy predates Spanberger’s governorship.

DHS did not respond to a request to clarify the precise location of the arrest.

What Spanberger’s order does — and does not do

The DHS release opens by stating that Spanberger “ended the state’s cooperation” with ICE. But the release’s own description of the order is more precise: it says Spanberger signed an executive order “that local and state law enforcement are no longer required to cooperate with ICE.” No longer required is not the same as banned.

Spanberger’s Executive Order No. 10 rescinded former Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s Executive Order 47, which had required the Virginia State Police and the Virginia Department of Corrections to enter into 287(g) agreements with ICE. Those agreements deputize state officers to perform certain federal immigration enforcement functions.

The text of the executive order itself states that Virginia law enforcement should prioritize “the safety and security of all residents in Virginia, the enforcement of local and state laws, and coordination with federal entities on criminal matters.” The order explicitly preserves cooperation with federal authorities on criminal cases. It draws a distinction between criminal coordination and civil immigration enforcement, not between cooperation and non-cooperation.

Spanberger’s order did not ban local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE. Local sheriffs and police departments remain free to enter into their own 287(g) agreements or to cooperate with federal authorities. Existing agreements were not automatically terminated.

Multiple law enforcement officials confirmed in the days after the order was signed that local cooperation remained unchanged. The order applies to state agencies, not to city police departments or county sheriffs’ offices.

“State and local law enforcement should not be required to divert their limited resources to enforce federal civil immigration laws,” Spanberger said when signing the order. “It is a responsibility of federal law enforcement.”

The ‘7 of 10 safest cities’ claim

McLaughlin stated that “7 of the 10 safest cities in the U.S. cooperate with” ICE, a claim DHS has repeated in press releases targeting Democratic governors in multiple states.

The claim appears to reference the U.S. News & World Report 2025-2026 safest places rankings. That top 10 includes Sammamish, Washington — a city in a state that DHS itself has identified as having laws restricting local cooperation with ICE. According to DHS data, Washington is one of six states — along with Oregon, California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Connecticut — with statutes restraining such cooperation. Newton, Massachusetts, which ranks third on the list, is not in a state on DHS’s restrictive list, but also is not in a state with a mandate requiring cooperation.

DHS presented the statistic without citing a source, a methodology, or any research establishing that ICE cooperation caused the low crime rates.

The Fox News analysis that first examined the data acknowledged that these cities “share other traits, such as high median incomes and a lack of mixed-use zoning or transient rental housing.” Johns Creek, Georgia, ranked No. 1, has a median household income of roughly $163,000 — more than double the national average. Centreville, Virginia, ranked No. 2, is in western Fairfax County, one of the wealthiest jurisdictions in the country.

A substantial body of peer-reviewed research has found no causal link between immigration enforcement cooperation and lower crime. A 2020 study published by the National Academy of Sciences found that sanctuary policies “had no detectable effect on crime rates.” A Center for American Progress analysis found counties that declined ICE detainer requests averaged 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people than those that honored them. Researchers at multiple universities have reached similar conclusions.

Proponents of 287(g) agreements counter that the programs help remove dangerous individuals who might otherwise be released into communities. Virginia House Republican Leader Terry Kilgore said after Spanberger signed her order that ending state participation “allows criminal illegal immigrants to remain in our communities and commit crimes over and over again by shielding them from cooperation with federal law enforcement.” Former Gov. Youngkin pointed to arrests of MS-13 leaders during his administration as evidence that the agreements produced results.

The debate over whether such agreements reduce crime or divert resources from local policing remains active among researchers, law enforcement officials, and policymakers.

The Convention Against Torture ruling

The DHS release criticizes an immigration judge for granting Hernandez protection under the Convention Against Torture, calling it “deeply ironic” that someone who the agency says committed acts of violence was found to need protection from it.

The release omits the legal framework. The Convention Against Torture, ratified by the United States in 1994, prohibits the government from returning any person to a country where they would more likely than not face torture — regardless of that person’s criminal history. Congress specifically designed the statute so that criminal convictions, including aggravated felonies, do not bar eligibility. Individuals with serious criminal records may receive “deferral of removal,” the most limited form of CAT relief. It does not confer lawful status, does not lead to a green card, and can be revoked if conditions in the home country change.

Immigration judges assessing CAT claims are required to evaluate whether an individual faces a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of government officials in the receiving country. In El Salvador, President Nayib Bukele’s government has imprisoned tens of thousands of suspected gang members under a state of exception. International human rights organizations have documented widespread abuse in the country’s detention facilities.

DHS characterized the ruling as a political decision by “a Biden administration judge.” Immigration judges are bound by standards established in statute, regulation and case law. CAT protection is mandatory — not discretionary — when an applicant meets the legal standard.

The decision is nonetheless controversial. Critics, including current DHS officials, argue that CAT protections have been applied too broadly, shielding violent offenders from removal. The Trump administration has moved aggressively to narrow the scope of such protections. In July 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued multiple precedential decisions restricting CAT relief for individuals with gang affiliations facing removal to El Salvador, signaling a legal shift that could affect cases like Hernandez’s going forward.

Whether the immigration judge’s ruling in this case was sound or an overreach is a legitimate legal question. What is not accurate is characterizing the decision as a political favor. CAT claims are governed by statute and treaty obligation, and the legal standard does not vary by administration.

What DHS doesn’t address

The press release does not explain a central question raised by its own timeline: According to DHS, Hernandez confessed to five murders and admitted MS-13 membership while in federal custody after a 2017 removal order. If that is the case, why was he not prosecuted or removed at that time?

According to the release, Hernandez entered the country illegally in 2015 during the Obama administration and received a removal order in 2017 during the first Trump administration. The press release blames the Biden administration for granting him a work permit and allowing him to remain in the country, but does not account for the years between the confessions it describes and any action on them.

DHS has not released court records, hearing transcripts, or the immigration judge’s written decision in the case. Without those documents, the agency’s account of Hernandez’s criminal admissions cannot be independently verified.

The Alexandria Brief has requested this documentation and will update this report as information becomes available.