A Controversial Deportation: Trump, Tren de Aragua, and the Alien Enemies Act
In a bold and deeply controversial move, the Trump administration deported 238 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, along with 23 members of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, from the United States to El Salvador on Sunday. This action occurred despite a court order issued by federal judge James Boasberg, which sought to block the administration’s ability to carry out such deportations. The move has sparked intense debate over its legality, with critics accusing the administration of defying judicial authority and misapplying a centuries-old law to justify its actions.
What Happened?
The deportations were part of a broader agreement between the Trump administration and El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who agreed to detain the individuals on behalf of the U.S. in exchange for financial compensation. The agreement was reportedly finalized during a meeting between Bukele and Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month. Once in El Salvador, the deportees were transferred to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a maximum-security prison with a 40,000-person capacity, where they will be held for at least one year, with the possibility of extension.
The legal underpinning for the deportations came from President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law that allows the president to detain or deport non-citizens deemed a threat to national security. In a proclamation signed on Saturday, Trump designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization, claiming that the group posed an “invasion or predatory incursion” against U.S. territory. The proclamation targeted Venezuelan citizens aged 14 or older who are members of the gang and lack U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency.
However, the administration’s use of this law was swiftly challenged in court. On Saturday, Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from using wartime powers to carry out the deportations. Despite this, President Bukele confirmed on social media that the deportations had already been carried out, taunting critics by posting a news snippet of the judge’s ruling with a crying-with-laughter emoji and the caption “Oopsie … Too late.”
The Alien Enemies Act: A Law Steeped in History and Controversy
The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798 during a period of heightened tensions with France, has been invoked only three times prior to the Trump administration—during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. The law grants the president extraordinary powers to detain or deport non-citizens during wartime without a hearing, based solely on their citizenship. While the law has been used exclusively in times of war, Trump’s administration argued that the U.S. faces an “invasion” of undocumented immigrants, thus justifying its use.
Critics, however, have slammed the administration’s actions as a flagrant abuse of power. Legal experts and civil liberties groups argue that invoking the Alien Enemies Act in peacetime to bypass conventional immigration law sets a dangerous precedent. The Brennan Center for Justice has called such use of the law “a staggering abuse,” asserting that courts should strike down any peacetime application of the Act. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to a grand jury, except in wartime, raising additional concerns about the legality of the administration’s actions.
A Brazen Defiance of Judicial Authority
The Trump administration’s decision to proceed with the deportations despite Judge Boasberg’s restraining order has added fuel to the fire. Legal experts have accused the administration of openly defying judicial authority, with Patrick Eddington of the Cato Institute calling the move “beyond the pale and certainly unprecedented.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, however, defended the administration’s actions, arguing that a single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of a plane full of “foreign alien terrorists” who had already been expelled from U.S. soil. She further claimed that federal courts generally lack jurisdiction over the president’s conduct of foreign affairs.
Yet, legal scholars such as Bruce Fein and Steve Vladeck have pushed back against this argument, asserting that federal courts do indeed have jurisdiction over the president’s actions, even in matters of foreign policy. Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University’s Law Center, argued that the court’s jurisdiction extends beyond U.S. borders and that the deportees should be brought back to the U.S. even if they had already left the country. Fein similarly emphasized that the president is not above the law, stating, “The President is not a king. Federal courts have jurisdiction over the President.”
Why El Salvador?
The decision to send the deportees to El Salvador stems from a broader strategy by the Trump administration to circumvent challenges in deporting individuals to their home countries. Venezuela, for instance, has historically been reluctant to accept deportees from the U.S., particularly under the strained diplomatic relations between the two nations. As a result, the administration has turned to third countries in Central America, such as El Salvador, to detain these individuals in exchange for financial compensation.
President Bukele has embraced this arrangement, touting it as a beneficial deal for El Salvador. In a social media post, he revealed that the U.S. would pay approximately $6 million to detain the Tren de Aragua members for a year. However, the arrangement has raised concerns about the conditions under which the deportees will be held. CECOT, where the individuals are being detained, is a maximum-security prison known for its harsh conditions, including the prohibition of visitation, education, and recreation for inmates.
What’s Next?
As the legal battle over the deportations continues, the Trump administration has requested a stay of Judge Boasberg’s order from the D.C. Circuit Court. Legal experts such as Fein predict that the request will be denied, with the Supreme Court also likely to reject any further appeals. In the meantime, the deportees remain in CECOT, their fate hanging in the balance as the U.S. Courts grapple with the implications of the administration’s actions.
The broader implications of this episode extend far beyond the immediate legal and diplomatic fallout. At its core, this controversy raises fundamental questions about the limits of presidential power, the role of the judiciary in checking that power, and the balance between national security and individual rights. As the courts continue to deliberate, one thing is clear: the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has set a precedent that could have far-reaching consequences for the rule of law in the United States.
