In a controversial move, President Donald Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify the deportation of 137 Venezuelan nationals, citing their alleged association with a Venezuelan gang. This law, originally crafted during a time of national turmoil, has been used sparingly throughout U.S. history and typically in the context of wartime.
On March 15, 2025, the Trump administration issued a directive to deport these individuals under the guise of the Alien Enemies Act. The law allows for the removal of foreign nationals from nations engaged in hostilities against the U.S., but it has not been used since World War II and remains primarily a tool for wartime actions. However, the Venezuelan gang linked to the deportations, Tren de Aragua, does not qualify as a national government or enemy state, raising questions about the legal foundation for the move.
A swift response came from a federal judge, who temporarily blocked the deportations, ordering planes bound for El Salvador to return. Despite this ruling, the Trump administration continued with the deportations, citing that the planes were already en route by the time the order was issued. The White House has filed an appeal, asserting that the planes were outside the jurisdiction of the federal judge.
The case has generated significant debate about the use of the Alien Enemies Act in modern-day America. Critics, including civil liberties groups, argue that the law’s application is outdated and unconstitutional in this context. Legal experts point out that the Act was created during the early years of the U.S. and has historically only been used during times of declared war, when a clear enemy nation is involved.
The Alien Enemies Act’s origins trace back to the 18th century when political divisions between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were deepening. The law was one of several measures intended to curb political dissent and limit the influence of immigrants sympathetic to foreign powers. Despite its repressive origins, the law has remained part of the U.S. legal framework, surviving even as most of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed or allowed to expire.
The law has been used a handful of times, including during World War I and World War II, but never under circumstances like those faced today. The Trump administration’s use of the law in this case raises questions about whether it can be stretched to justify actions outside of its historical scope, particularly when the U.S. is not engaged in active warfare with Venezuela or any other country.
Immigrant rights organizations and legal advocacy groups are gearing up for a protracted legal battle. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit on March 15, contesting the legality of the administration’s actions under the Alien Enemies Act. The central issue is whether the law can be invoked without a formal declaration of war or an actual state of conflict.
As the case moves through the courts, experts are watching closely to see whether the judiciary will uphold the Trump administration’s claims or impose limits on the law’s application. This situation may ultimately lead to a landmark decision on the scope of executive power and the enforcement of immigration laws.
The legal battle over the use of the Alien Enemies Act will likely escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court, with the potential to redefine the legal landscape surrounding presidential power and the treatment of immigrants in the U.S. If successful, this case could mark a new chapter in the law’s controversial history.
Related topics: