The Claim

Invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport brutal Tren de Aragua gang members.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

Two factual assertions: (1) the administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a 1798 wartime statute; (2) the purpose was to deport members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Venezuelan criminal organization, from the United States.

What is being implied but not asserted?

That invoking the AEA was a legal, proportionate, and effective response to a genuine threat. That TdA constitutes a threat so severe that a wartime statute from 1798 was appropriate. That the people deported were actually “brutal” TdA gang members. That the deportations were successful. That the AEA invocation was upheld by courts. That this represents a “win.”

What is conspicuously absent?

Any mention that the AEA is a wartime statute previously used only during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II — the last time to intern Japanese, German, and Italian nationals. Any mention that no declared war, invasion, or predatory incursion existed under the statute’s own terms. Any mention that the Supreme Court (Trump v. J.G.G.) required due process protections the administration had not provided. Any mention that the Fifth Circuit — one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country — ruled 2-1 that the AEA was “improperly invoked” because TdA’s activities do not constitute an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” Any mention that Judge Boasberg found “probable cause” of criminal contempt of court because the administration continued deportation flights after he ordered them stopped. Any mention that most of the 137 people deported under the AEA had no criminal records, and investigations found the vast majority had no actual connection to TdA. Any mention that the government’s own intelligence community concluded that Venezuela’s Maduro regime “probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States” — directly contradicting the AEA proclamation’s central premise. Any mention that intelligence analysts who produced this finding were fired. Any mention that the deportees were sent to CECOT, a notorious Salvadoran mega-prison, held incommunicado for 125 days, and later transferred to Venezuela without ever receiving a hearing.

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

The Alien Enemies Act was invoked on March 15, 2025. Presidential Proclamation 10903, signed March 14 and made public March 15, 2025, invoked the Alien Enemies Act (50 U.S.C. 21 et seq.) against Venezuelan nationals aged 14 and older whom the government determined to be members of Tren de Aragua. The proclamation declared that TdA was “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States” and was operating under the direction of Venezuela’s Maduro regime. The factual core of the claim — that the AEA was invoked — is true. [^030-a1]

238 Venezuelan nationals were deported to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, including 137 under the AEA. Of the total 238 deportees, 137 were removed under the AEA and 101 under regular immigration law. They were flown to El Salvador and immediately transferred to CECOT (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo), a maximum-security prison. The deportation flights proceeded despite Judge Boasberg having issued a temporary restraining order that day blocking AEA removals and verbally ordering Justice Department lawyers that any planes in the air “needs to be returned.” [^030-a2]

The Alien Enemies Act is a wartime statute, previously invoked only during declared wars. The AEA was enacted in 1798 as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts. It authorizes presidential action when “there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory.” It was invoked during the War of 1812 (against British nationals), World War I (against nationals of Central Powers), and World War II (against Japanese, German, and Italian nationals — providing legal authority for the internment of nearly 9,000 Japanese immigrants and over 14,500 German and Italian detainees). It was last used for internment and deportations by the Truman administration until 1951. Before Trump’s invocation, it had never been used outside of a declared war or its immediate aftermath. [^030-a3]

The Supreme Court in Trump v. J.G.G. (April 7, 2025) vacated the TROs but required due process protections. Five justices vacated the district court’s temporary restraining orders, but all nine justices agreed that detainees must receive notice and an adequate opportunity to challenge their designation. The majority held challenges must be brought through habeas proceedings. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented (with Barrett joining in part), arguing the Court rewarded “governmental misconduct.” Critically, the Court did not reach the merits of whether the AEA was properly invoked — it did not rule that TdA constitutes an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” [^030-a4]

The Supreme Court in A.A.R.P. v. Trump (May 16, 2025) blocked further AEA deportations. The Court ruled that notice of roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights, was not constitutionally adequate. The Court identified two underlying legal questions courts would need to decide: (i) whether the AEA authorizes removal of these detainees, and (ii) if so, what notice is due. This effectively halted further AEA deportations. [^030-a5]

The Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 (September 2, 2025) that the AEA was “improperly invoked.” In W.M.M. v. Trump, the Fifth Circuit — one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country — granted a preliminary injunction halting AEA removals. The court defined “invasion” as “an act of war involving entry by a military force of a foreign nation” and “predatory incursion” as “armed forces of some size and cohesion, engaged in something less than an invasion…directed by a foreign government or nation.” The court found: “A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force.” TdA’s criminal activities, “regardless of scale,” did not meet the military-character threshold the AEA requires. The Fifth Circuit granted en banc rehearing on September 30, vacating the panel opinion. En banc argument was held January 22, 2026; the case remains pending. [^030-a6]

Most deportees had no criminal records and investigations found no actual TdA connections for the vast majority. An ICE declaration acknowledged that “many” deportees lacked U.S. criminal records. Of 194 migrants with gang affiliations apprehended by CBP between October 2024 and February 2025, only 16 were identified as TdA members — approximately 0.02% of the roughly 64,000 Venezuelan migrants apprehended in that period. Investigations by ProPublica and other outlets found the vast majority of the 238 deportees had no criminal records and none appeared on law enforcement’s gang member lists maintained by Venezuelan law enforcement or Interpol. Only approximately 32 of the 238 had any kind of serious criminal record; an even smaller number — “just a handful” — had any possible connection to TdA. [^030-a7]

The government classified deportees as TdA members primarily based on tattoos — which experts unanimously say are unreliable identifiers. ICE used crowns, pocket watches, and other symbols as alleged TdA identifiers. However, gang researchers, law enforcement experts, and a University of Florida criminology professor all stated that “gangs more generally in Venezuela, do not have a history of using tattoos” and that the administration’s approach “appears to result from an incorrect conflation of gang practices in Central America and Venezuela.” Aurora, Colorado’s Police Chief — whose department has directly investigated TdA — confirmed: “Tren de Aragua does not” have obvious identifying signs, unlike MS-13. Specific wrongful identifications include Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, a gay makeup artist with crown tattoos over “Mom” and “Dad” whose tattoos were the sole basis for alleged TdA connection. [^030-a8]

The U.S. intelligence community concluded that Venezuela does not direct TdA. A National Intelligence Council assessment (April 7, 2025), declassified via FOIA, found: “While Venezuela’s permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States.” The assessment characterized TdA as “decentralized” and said it was “highly unlikely that TDA coordinates large volumes of human trafficking or migrant smuggling.” This directly contradicts the AEA proclamation’s central claim that TdA operates under Maduro’s direction — the very basis for treating TdA as the armed force of a “foreign nation.” [^030-a9]

Intelligence analysts who produced this finding were fired; their superiors were pressured to change it. DNI Tulsi Gabbard fired two veteran National Intelligence Council officials after their assessment contradicted White House claims. Emails showed Joe Kent (DNI chief of staff, later confirmed as NCTC director) pressed analysts to rewrite findings “so this document is not used against the DNI or POTUS” and to emphasize supposed ties between Venezuela’s government and TdA. The analysts refused, and the assessment was issued maintaining its original conclusion. They were fired shortly after. [^030-a10]

Judge Boasberg found “probable cause” of criminal contempt of court. The deportation flights on March 15 proceeded after Judge Boasberg issued a TRO and verbally ordered flights stopped or turned around. Boasberg later wrote: “the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.” He noted that “those individuals were on planes being flown overseas, having been spirited out of the United States by the Government before they could vindicate their due-process rights.” The contempt inquiry continued through 2025, expanding by December to include DHS Secretary Noem. [^030-a11]

The deportees were held incommunicado in CECOT for 125 days, then sent to Venezuela without hearings. The 238 men were held in CECOT — a notorious mega-prison with documented human rights concerns — with no access to families or attorneys for approximately four months. On July 18, 2025, over 250 Venezuelan men were released from CECOT and transferred to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap arrangement. They received no hearing, no opportunity to challenge their designation as gang members, and no opportunity to pursue asylum claims. In December 2025, Judge Boasberg ruled the deportees were denied their due-process rights. In February 2026, he ordered the government to facilitate the return of those who wished to return to the U.S. or provide hearings. [^030-a12]

Strong Inferences

The AEA invocation was a political spectacle, not a legal enforcement tool. The administration had full authority to deport TdA members through existing immigration law — the Immigration and Nationality Act already provides for the removal of gang members, criminals, and those with terrorism connections (especially after the February 2025 FTO designation of TdA). The AEA adds nothing to the government’s deportation authority that existing law does not already provide. What it adds is the spectacle: invoking a 1798 wartime statute, declaring an “invasion,” and deporting people to a foreign mega-prison with no hearing. The Fifth Circuit explicitly noted: “the government remains free to remove TdA members under other legal authorities.” The choice to invoke the AEA was theatrical, not functional. [^030-a13]

The AEA proclamation’s premise — that TdA is an invading force directed by Venezuela — has been debunked by the government’s own intelligence. The NIC assessment concluded Maduro neither directs TdA nor coordinates its movement to the U.S. The AEA requires a “foreign nation or government” to be perpetrating an invasion or predatory incursion. If TdA is not directed by Venezuela, it is simply a transnational criminal gang — and criminal gangs do not constitute “invasions” or “predatory incursions” under a wartime statute, as the Fifth Circuit explicitly ruled. The administration’s response to this intelligence finding — firing the analysts — reveals its awareness that the legal premise was unsupported by the evidence. [^030-a14]

TdA’s actual presence in the United States is dramatically smaller than the administration’s rhetoric implies. DHS identified approximately 600 people with possible TdA ties as of October 2024. CBP data shows only 16 TdA members among 194 gang-affiliated migrants apprehended between October 2024 and February 2025 — fewer than the number of MS-13 members apprehended in the same period. In Aurora, Colorado — the city Trump repeatedly cited as a “war zone” overrun by TdA — local police identified “just over a dozen or so” TdA members in a city of 395,000. TdA’s total global membership is estimated at 3,000 to 7,000, mostly in Venezuela, Colombia, and Peru. This is a real criminal organization, but the scale of the response — invoking a wartime statute, declaring an invasion, sending people to a foreign prison without hearings — is wildly disproportionate to the documented threat. [^030-a15]

Informed Speculation

The Alien Enemies Act invocation was the most extreme example of a pattern visible throughout the “365 wins” immigration section: using maximalist legal authority and maximalist rhetoric to address problems that existing legal tools already handle, because the spectacle itself is the point. The AEA proclamation was issued on a Saturday, deportation flights departed within hours, and the administration defied a federal court order to stop them — all suggesting the priority was creating dramatic images and headlines rather than effective enforcement.

The CECOT dimension is particularly revealing. The men were not deported to Venezuela (their country of citizenship) but to El Salvador, a country with which they had no connection, to be imprisoned indefinitely without trial in a facility that the UN has raised human rights concerns about. This is not deportation in any conventional sense — it is extrajudicial rendition. The administration paid El Salvador to imprison these men, creating a parallel detention system outside the reach of U.S. courts. When the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Kilmar Abrego Garcia — a Salvadoran with a legal protection order who was mistakenly swept up in a similar deportation — had been illegally deported and must be returned, the administration initially refused, provoking a constitutional crisis.

The firing of intelligence analysts who contradicted the White House on TdA’s relationship to Venezuela is the most structurally significant element. The AEA invocation rested on the claim that TdA operates as an arm of the Venezuelan state — that their criminal activities constitute a state-directed “invasion.” When the intelligence community concluded this was false, the administration’s response was not to revise the legal theory but to fire the analysts and promote the political appointee (Joe Kent) who had pressured them. This reveals the administration’s relationship to factual constraints: evidence that contradicts the desired conclusion is not a problem to address but an obstacle to remove.

Structural Analysis

Stated vs. revealed preferences: The administration stated it was using the AEA to deport “brutal” gang members. The revealed preference was for maximum spectacle with minimum due process. If the goal were genuinely removing TdA members, existing immigration law and the FTO designation already provided full authority, and standard deportation proceedings would ensure that the right people were removed. By choosing the AEA — a wartime statute that allows removal without hearing — the administration revealed that bypassing judicial review was the actual goal, not effective gang enforcement. The subsequent discovery that most deportees had no TdA connections confirms this: the process was designed to maximize removals and minimize accountability.

Follow the legal trail: The legal cascade reveals the strategy. EO 14157 (January 20, 2025) designated TdA as an FTO. The AEA proclamation (March 15) invoked wartime authority against TdA as agents of Venezuela. The Supreme Court required due process (April 7, May 16). The Fifth Circuit ruled the invocation likely unlawful (September 2). The Fifth Circuit granted en banc rehearing (September 30), vacating the panel ruling and giving the administration another chance. Judge Boasberg ruled due process was violated (December 23). Each court ruling has narrowed the administration’s authority, but the initial deportations — conducted in defiance of a court order — are irreversible for the affected individuals. The legal strategy appears designed to create facts on the ground faster than courts can review them.

The attribution problem: Even accepting that some TdA members were among the deportees, the claim that the AEA was the necessary legal tool is false. TdA members were already deportable under the INA, already designated as members of an FTO (which triggers terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds), and already subject to criminal prosecution for gang-related offenses. Every legal tool the government needed was already available. The AEA adds only one thing: the ability to bypass judicial review. That is its entire contribution to enforcement, and that contribution has been rejected by every court to consider it.

Cui bono: The primary beneficiaries of the AEA invocation were political, not public safety. The spectacle produced dramatic media coverage, demonstrated maximalist toughness on immigration, and created a precedent (however legally contested) for using wartime authority against civilian populations. The individuals harmed include the majority of deportees who had no gang connections, the intelligence community whose professional assessments were overridden and whose analysts were fired, and the legal system whose orders were defied.

Context the Framing Omits

The AEA was last used for Japanese internment — one of the most widely condemned acts of the U.S. government. Congress, multiple presidents, and the courts have formally apologized for the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. The law that authorized that internment is the same law the administration invoked against Venezuelan immigrants in 2025. Japanese American advocacy organizations, including Densho and the Japanese American Citizens League, explicitly condemned the 2025 invocation as a repetition of the same pattern. The JACL has advocated for the “Neighbors Not Enemies Act” to repeal the AEA entirely.

No declared war, invasion, or predatory incursion existed. The AEA’s own statutory language requires either a “declared war” or an “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation. Congress has not declared war since 1942. The Fifth Circuit — after extensive historical analysis — concluded that TdA’s activities do not meet either definition, which requires “armed forces of some size and cohesion” with a “military character.” A criminal gang, however violent, is not an invading army.

Existing immigration law already provided every tool needed. The INA, the FTO designation (February 2025), TRIG grounds for inadmissibility, criminal prosecution under gang and organized crime statutes, and standard deportation proceedings all provided authority to remove actual TdA members. The AEA’s sole advantage was bypassing judicial review — allowing removal without the hearing that might reveal whether the targeted individual was actually a gang member. For the vast majority of those deported, such a hearing would have exonerated them.

The Kilmar Abrego Garcia case demonstrated the system’s capacity for error. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national with a withholding-of-removal order (legal protection from deportation to El Salvador), was swept up in the March deportation flights and sent to CECOT despite having no connection to TdA. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled his removal was illegal and ordered the government to facilitate his return. The administration initially resisted, creating a constitutional crisis. He was returned to the U.S. on June 6, 2025 — and immediately indicted on criminal charges in what his attorneys described as retaliation.

CBP’s own data shows TdA is not the dominant gang threat. Between October 2024 and February 2025, CBP apprehended more MS-13 members (approximately 30) than TdA members (16) among gang-affiliated migrants. The political focus on TdA over MS-13 — and the invocation of an 18th-century wartime statute specifically against Venezuelans — reflects political priorities rather than a proportionate threat assessment.

Verdict

Factual core: Narrowly true. The Alien Enemies Act was invoked via Proclamation 10903 on March 15, 2025, and 137 people were deported under its authority. That the AEA was “invoked” is a statement of fact.

Framing as “win”: Substantially misleading. The claim omits that:

1. The invocation has been found unlawful or constitutionally deficient by every court to rule on the merits. The Fifth Circuit ruled the AEA was “improperly invoked.” The Supreme Court blocked further AEA deportations without adequate due process. Judge Boasberg ruled the deportees were denied their due-process rights. Claiming a legal action as a “win” while omitting that courts have overwhelmingly rejected its legality is fundamentally dishonest.

2. Most deportees were not TdA members. Only a “handful” of the 238 deportees had any possible TdA connection. The government classified people based on tattoos that experts unanimously say are unreliable identifiers. The administration’s own intelligence community concluded TdA is “decentralized” and does not coordinate migration. Many deportees had no criminal records of any kind.

3. The AEA was unnecessary — existing law provided full authority. The FTO designation, the INA, and criminal prosecution statutes already covered TdA members. The AEA’s sole addition was bypassing judicial review — ensuring no hearing could reveal that the deportees were not actually gang members.

4. The administration defied a federal court order and faces criminal contempt proceedings. Judge Boasberg found “probable cause” of criminal contempt for the government’s “willful disregard” of his order to stop deportation flights. This is not a “win” — it is documented lawlessness.

5. The AEA is a wartime statute last used for Japanese internment. Invoking the same law used for one of the most condemned acts in American history — against a civilian population, with no declared war, invasion, or predatory incursion — is not an achievement. It is a regression.

What a reader should understand: The Alien Enemies Act was indeed invoked — that narrow claim is factually accurate. But the invocation was a political spectacle dressed as legal enforcement. The 1798 wartime statute, last used to intern Japanese Americans, was deployed against Venezuelan immigrants based on the false premise that their criminal gang constitutes a state-directed invasion. The administration’s own intelligence community debunked that premise, and the analysts who said so were fired. Most of the 137 people deported under the AEA had no criminal records and no demonstrable TdA connection — they were classified as gang members based on tattoos that law enforcement experts say are unreliable. They were sent without hearings to a Salvadoran mega-prison, held incommunicado for four months, then transferred to Venezuela. Every court to examine the merits has found the AEA invocation unlawful, constitutionally deficient, or both. The administration defied a federal court order to stop the flights and faces ongoing criminal contempt proceedings. Existing immigration law already provided complete authority to deport actual gang members through lawful processes. The AEA added nothing except the ability to bypass the judicial review that would have revealed the deportees were not who the government claimed. Listing this as a “win” requires ignoring the court rulings, the intelligence findings, the misidentifications, the contempt proceedings, and the historical weight of invoking the same law used for Japanese internment — all for a deportation action that affected 137 people, most of whom were not gang members.

Cross-References

• Item #3: “650,000 arrests, detentions, and deportations” — the AEA deportations are a subset of the broader enforcement operation described in Item #3; like that claim, the actual criminal threat level of those affected is far lower than the rhetoric implies (less than 14% of ICE arrests involved violent criminal records)
• Item #4: “400,000 criminal aliens deported” — the AEA deportees were classified as “criminal” based on tattoos and checklist items, not convictions; Item #4’s analysis shows the most common “conviction” among ICE detainees was traffic violations
• Item #19: “Blocked 10,000 individuals with narcoterrorism or cartel ties” — shares the same FTO designation mechanism (TdA was designated as an FTO under EO 14157 in Item #19’s framework) and the same pattern of definitional manipulation; NCTC director Joe Kent features in both stories, pressuring analysts about TdA intelligence before his eventual resignation

Sources

White House. “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua.” Proclamation 10903. March 15, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/

Federal Register. “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua.” March 20, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/20/2025-04865/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua

Supreme Court of the United States. “Trump v. J.G.G.” No. 24A931. April 7, 2025. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

Supreme Court of the United States. “A.A.R.P. v. Trump.” No. 24A1007. May 16, 2025. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf

Lawfare. “Fifth Circuit Grants Preliminary Injunction Against AEA Tren de Aragua Removals.” September 2, 2025. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/fifth-circuit-grants-preliminary-injunction-against-aea-tren-de-aragua-removals

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy). “Fifth Circuit Rules Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act is Illegal.” September 3, 2025. https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/03/fifth-circuit-rules-trumps-use-of-alien-enemies-act-is-illegal/

PolitiFact. “Why Did a Court Rule That Trump Can’t Deport Tren de Aragua Members Using the Alien Enemies Act?” September 3, 2025. https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/sep/03/Tren-de-Aragua-deportations-Alien-Enemies-Trump/

NPR. “5 Things to Know About the Alien Enemies Act and Trump’s Efforts to Use It.” March 18, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/18/nx-s1-5331857/alien-enemies-act-trump-deportations

NPR. “What is Tren de Aragua’s Footprint in the U.S.? Experts Say Smaller Than Federal Officials Say.” April 8, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/08/g-s1-58849/tren-de-aragua-presence-reality-check

NPR. “U.S. Intelligence Memo Says Venezuelan Government Does Not Control Tren de Aragua Gang.” May 6, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/06/nx-s1-5388392/u-s-intelligence-memo-says-venezuelan-government-does-not-control-tren-de-aragua-gang

NPR. “Judge: ‘Probable Cause’ to Hold U.S. in Contempt Over Alien Enemies Act Deportations.” April 16, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/16/g-s1-60696/judge-contempt-alien-enemies-act

NPR. “Alien Enemies Act Deportations Violated Due Process, Judge Says.” December 22, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/12/22/nx-s1-5652187/alien-enemies-act-deportations-case

CBS News. “ICE Claims Tattoos Tie Migrants to the Tren de Aragua Gang. Experts Say They Aren’t Reliable Identifiers.” March 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-tattoos-tren-de-aragua-venezuela-gang/

FactCheck.org. “Q&A on the Alien Enemies Act and Tren de Aragua in the U.S.” March 2025. https://www.factcheck.org/2025/03/qa-on-the-alien-enemies-act-and-tren-de-aragua-in-the-u-s/

Axios. “Gabbard Fires Top National Intelligence Council Officials After Venezuela Intel Report.” May 15, 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/05/15/gabbard-fires-intelligence-officials-venezuela-tren-de-aragua

CBS News. “Counterterrorism Nominee Joe Kent Under Scrutiny as Emails Show He Pushed for Edits to Intelligence Assessment.” 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/counterterrorism-nominee-joe-kent-emails-edits-intelligence-assessment/

Brennan Center for Justice. “The Alien Enemies Act, Explained.” 2025. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/alien-enemies-act-explained

Densho. “The Alien Enemies Act Paved the Way for Japanese American Incarceration. Let’s Keep It in the Past.” 2025. https://densho.org/catalyst/the-alien-enemies-act-paved-the-way-for-japanese-american-incarceration-lets-keep-it-in-the-past/

ABC News. “‘Many’ Alleged Gang Members Deported by Trump Didn’t Have Criminal Records in the US: ICE.” March 2025. https://abcnews.com/US/noncitizens-deported-alien-enemies-act-criminal-records-ice/story?id=119912375

NPR. “Federal Judge Orders Return of Venezuelan Migrants Deported to El Salvador Under Alien Enemies Act.” February 12, 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/12/nx-s1-5712542/federal-judge-orders-return-of-venezuelan-migrants-deported-to-el-salvador-under-alien-enemies-act

PBS NewsHour. “NYT Investigation Finds No Evidence Linking Many Deported Venezuelans to Tren de Aragua.” 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/nyt-investigation-finds-no-evidence-linking-many-deported-venezuelans-to-tren-de-aragua