On March 15, a U.S. plane carrying 137 immigrants landed at a mega-prison in El Salvador [1]. The government identified the plane’s passengers as members of the dangerous Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, though their removal was far from straightforward. Just hours before the flight departed, a District Court judge ruled the deportations temporarily illegal. Less than a day before, the reinstatement of a centuries-old law justified them. This bold move was an attempt to uphold the tough-on-immigration promise that helped Trump return to the presidency in January. 

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) repatriates thousands of illegal immigrants every month [2]. Rates of deportation are fairly consistent between Democratic and Republican presidents. However, the deportation of undocumented immigrants has become a highly polarizing issue, with much negative attention pointed at the political right [3]. The March 15 deportations were no exception, receiving a passionate response from the American public. The American political left was appalled by the lack of due process afforded to the migrants, calling it an obscene overstep from the Trump administration [4]. Those on the right called it a job well done, applauding the removal of dangerous criminals from the nation. The deportations may yield positive and negative effects on the nation and beg the clarification of current immigration law.

The U.S. Constitution grants due process to all people on American soil, regardless of immigration status. Yet the March 15 deportations occurred with little notice, before many of the migrants ever reached court, prompting many to question the legality of this move. The Trump administration strategically leaned on the Alien Enemies Act, established in 1798 [5]. As an emergency measure, the act permits an expedited removal of non-citizens who belong to an enemy nation at a time of war. Since 1798, it has been invoked just three times: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. This would appear to lend itself to a swift rejection of Trump’s using the measure to bypass typical legal proceedings; after all, the United States is not actively at war. Consequently, members of the Democratic Party and advocacy groups were quick to call the move unjustified [6].

However, Trump turned to the language of the act itself when announcing his intent to use it. Section 21 of the United States Code of Law, which holds the Alien Enemy Act, permits the law’s use when a foreign nation attempts an “invasion or predatory incursion”. Trump claimed that Tren de Aragua (TdA) was “threatening an invasion” and “conducting irregular warfare” in the United States [7]. He connected the group to Venezuela’s “hybrid criminal state”, pointing out Venezuelan President Maduro’s known collusion and concessions of territory to TdA. While the use of “invasion” may be subject to debate, the threat posed by TdA to American national security is not. The group was connected to over 100 serious crimes in the U.S. in 2024, including three killings of police officers [8]. They were also credited with the murder of Ronald Ojeda, an outspoken opponent of Maduro’s authoritarian regime, whose body was discovered in a suitcase buried in cement in 2024. While former President Biden labeled the group a transnational criminal organization, the Department of Homeland Security moved this designation up to a Foreign Terrorist Organization earlier this year [9].

Still, the deportations have stirred much legal controversy. Though many of the deportees carried charges of murder, assault, harassment, and drug offenses, many also lacked any prior convictions or standing records [10]. Hours before the deportations occurred, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg demanded they be postponed, based on five Venezuelan nationals who had not been criminally convicted [11]. After the blatant disregard for his order, Boasberg moved to hold the Trump administration in legal contempt. Advocates on major news outlets and social media have echoed Boasberg’s discontent, with the CEO of Democracy Forward calling the deportations an “attack on the rule of law” [12]. Though at first the U.S. Court of Appeals placed a temporary hold on the use of the Alien Enemies Act, the law has more recently tended in the Trump Administration’s favor. The Supreme Court approved the use of the Act, so long as each case is afforded judicial review [13]. In April, the Court of Appeals also temporarily paused Boasberg’s contempt proceedings against the government.

Expedited deportations are not a new thing. Despite the concerns of many advocacy groups, U.S. law has long permitted removal without legal proceedings for certain groups of immigrants. Since 1996, U.S. immigration law has permitted the immediate removal of any noncitizen found within 100 miles of the border, or who has been in the country for less than two weeks [14]. Exceptions could be made for asylum seekers, who must pass a fear screening interview. In 2023, over 1.1 million detainees were deported from the United States. Yet, the United States has just 400 immigration judges, and the time awaiting trial spans from weeks to years [15]. The universal entitlement to trial reveals a major inefficiency in the US’s immigrant processing framework. For cases concerning potentially dangerous criminals, like those of the suspected TdA members, a long waiting period could yield dangerous results for public safety. The rate of immigrant removal is nothing out of the ordinary, either. The per-month deportations this year have not touched the records set by the Biden administration [16]. If due process has been legally subverted for so long, why is there an outcry now that potentially dangerous criminals are involved?

What has changed is the target of deportation. According to Trump’s “Border Czar” Tom Homan, the administration is prioritizing the deportation of illegal immigrants with criminal records or gang associations [17]. Much criticism from the left extends from the fact that many of the deported Venezuelans have no criminal record. However, the Department of Homeland Security insisted that the lack of information on the migrants contributed to their potential risk to national security. Furthermore, they claim to be operating on information that connects the individuals to Tren de Aragua and related crimes, despite a lack of formal legal proceedings [18]. ICE Field Office Director of Enforcement Robert Cerna has claimed that the lack of criminal records on the men is a result of the limited time they spent in the United States before being deported, rather than evidence that they are not dangerous [19].

ICE has received waves of criticism for its methods of identifying members of Tren de Aragua. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has especially pointed out the arbitrary use of informal and subjective indicators [20]. Among these are “high-end urban street wear” and tattoos of crowns, stars, and clocks. However, ICE’s official point system for connecting an individual to TdA reveals that these factors are weighted lightly [21]. The most heavily relied-on indicators include credible testimonies, police reports, and self-admissions. In fact, individuals who only receive points for symbolism or association require a level of secondary review before being designated as a member. This undermines the ACLU’s claim that the March 15 deportees were “erroneously listed as gang members, largely because of their tattoos” [22]. The official resources used to identify the individuals show that it would be impossible for an individual to be identified in any major part due to tattoos. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told reporters that a “thorough intelligence assessment” was used for each individual deported on March 15. The largest misconception regarding the March 15 deportations has been the labeling of those without criminal records as “non-criminal” [23]. Regardless of criminal history, they all violate U.S. Code Section 1325: Improper entry by alien.

Even if the March 15 deportations were lawful, many legal implications remain for Trump’s further use of the Alien Enemies Act, such as where to send detained immigrants. The March 15 deportees arrived at El Salvador’s infamous Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a maximum-security prison utilized for dangerous criminals. A central controversy revolves around the conditions inside CECOT. Designed to hold El Salvador’s most dangerous criminals, inmates are not treated to eventually rejoin society [24]. The prison offers no education or rehabilitation resources. Inmates occupy tightly-packed cells, without the opportunity to receive visitors or venture outdoors. According to Salvadoran President Bukele, there is no expectation that prisoners will rejoin society. For March 15 inmates who sought asylum in the United States, accessing legal resources from CECOT would be extremely difficult. Additionally, it is one thing to justify the deportation of a potential enemy alien. It is a whole other thing, however, to place non-convicted criminals in a maximum security facility notorious for its brutality. This issue reveals a significant difficulty related to the deportation of illegal immigrants. Current conditions in Venezuela make a return to origin unsafe and implausible. Given that the Department of Homeland Security has identified the removed individuals as threats to U.S. national security, it is also unlikely that the South American nations that typically receive removed migrants would be willing to accept this particular group. Thus, a deal with Bukele landed these individuals in CECOT [25].

Where do things go from here? As of April, the Supreme Court has upheld its ruling that the Alien Enemies Act is applicable, so long as they have the option to retroactively challenge the decision. However, this ability is complicated by the fact that migrants may lack the resources to do so, especially from a Salvadoran mega-prison. Fortunately, the ACLU and Democracy Forward have taken steps to represent the deported individuals, ensuring that justice will prevail. Another stream of controversy has stemmed from President Trump’s threat to deport “homegrown” criminals to CECOT in “a heartbeat” [26]. However, unlike illegal immigrants, there is no constitutional basis for relocating American citizens to foreign facilities. Thus, this comment may be less of a legal prerogative and more of a rhetorical device aimed at U.S.-based criminals. While outlandish, this tough-on-crime persona is what aided Trump’s reelection.