SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
alien enemies act
Judge Rules Trump Admin Must Give Due Process to Venezuelans Sent to El Salvador Torture Prison
"This ruling makes clear the government can't just send people off to a brutal foreign prison with zero due process and simply walk away," said an ACLU lawyer representing the men.
Dec 23, 2025
A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration acted illegally when it deported over 200 Venezuelan nationals to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process earlier this year.
On Monday, Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Trump administration to submit plans by January 5 for 137 men to contest their designation under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows foreign nationals from "hostile" nations to be removed without hearings.
In March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport two planeloads of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador without any explanation or court hearing. They were sent to a mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, which is known to subject inmates to torture and severe deprivation, with zero contact with the outside world.
The administration claimed the men were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which the administration referred to as a "hybrid criminal state" invading the United States. In reality, only a few dozen of the 238 men sent to CECOT had any criminal charges against them. As part of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) efforts to fast-track their deportations, many were rounded up based solely on the fact that they had tattoos.
“Plaintiffs should not have been removed in the manner that they were, with virtually no notice and no opportunity to contest the bases of their removal, in clear contravention of their due-process rights,” Boasberg wrote.
Boasberg is the same judge who launched criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration in April for "willful disregard" of his order to stop the flights to El Salvador. A pair of Trump-appointed judges later halted those proceedings.
In a "60 Minutes" special that was recently spiked by CBS News' Trump-friendly editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, several inmates testified to the conditions they were subject to inside CECOT.
"The first thing they told us was that we would never see the light of day or night again," said college student Luis Muñoz Pinto, who came to the US from Venezuela in 2024 through the legal asylum process. He said the CECOT director told prisoners, "Welcome to hell. I'll make sure you never leave."
According to a report published by Human Rights Watch in November, inmates were beaten daily, subject to sexual violence by guards, deprived of basic food, medical treatment, and hygiene, and forced to participate in degrading torture rituals.
Pinto, who now lives in Colombia, has no criminal record. "I never even got a traffic ticket," he said.
While the Trump administration claimed it no longer had jurisdiction over the prisoners once they were in El Salvador, and therefore could not follow court orders to bring them back to the US, this was belied by filings from the government of the far-right Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele at the United Nations, which stated that "the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively" with the US.
The men detained at CECOT were then transferred, mainly to Venezuela, in July as part of a prisoner exchange for 10 US nationals.
Boasberg says the US government "maintained constructive custody" of the men while they were interned in CECOT and that it violated their rights to due process by not allowing them to contest the accusations that they were gang members.
He said the Trump administration must give them a "meaningful opportunity to contest their designation," by allowing them to return to the US for a court hearing. He said the government "could also theoretically offer plaintiffs a hearing without returning them to the United States so long as such a hearing satisfied the requirements of due process."
"This ruling makes clear the government can't just send people off to a brutal foreign prison with zero due process and simply walk away," said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU, who served as lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
The Trump administration will almost certainly appeal the ruling. And while many of the former CECOT inmates may seek to return for their day in court, some say the experience has left them traumatized and fearful of returning to the United States.
Jerce Reyes Barrios, a professional soccer player and youth coach, returned to Venezuela after being released in July. According to his attorney, he was falsely accused due to a tattoo that the government claimed was a gang symbol, but was actually based on the Real Madrid soccer logo.
"I've focused my time on taking care of my daughters, coaching young kids, all to avoid those thoughts. At night, I sometimes have nightmares, and I feel like I'm still in CECOT," Reyes Barrios told ABC News. "At this moment, I'm not ready to decide if I want to fight this case."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Trump on Unlawful Deportation Scheme
The ACLU hailed the ruling for "reining in the administration's view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts."
Sep 03, 2025
A federal appeals court late Tuesday ruled against a Trump administration scheme that cited an 18th-century wartime statute to justify its clandestine deportation of alleged gang members to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned under harsh conditions without accountability and limited legal recourse.
The 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals—among the most conservative of the US appellate courts and more likely to side with Trump—said lawyers for the Department of Homeland Security did not present a satisfying case arguing that the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows for the arrest and deportation of "enemies" by presidential authority during wartime or an active invasion, could be used to target alleged low-level gang members, in this case those of Tren de Aragua or TdA, which has roots in Venezuela.
Trump and his team had argued the gang members were being directed by the Venezuelan government of President Nicolas Maduro, but have presented no evidence to support such claims. And while the group is known for some levels of violence and illegal drug trafficking, civil rights groups—led by ACLU—challenged the deportation of alleged members as a clear violation of domestic immigration law and principles of due process.
Critics of Trump also said it was laughable to treat a criminal gang like TdA as equivalent to an invading army. They warned that Trump's overreach was only part of his broader authoritarian push to claim wider and more dangerous power to target, intimidate, and harm immigrant communities.
"TdA was not the kind of organized force or engaged in the kind of actions necessary to constitute an invasion or predatory incursion," wrote Judge Leslie Southwick in the panel's 2-1 majority decision.
The court granted the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs, barring further deportations from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—where alleged TdA members are currently being held—until the case, almost certainly destined for the US Supreme Court, is finally decided.
Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the Trump administration's "use of a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court."
The ruling, Gelernt added, was "a critically important decision reining in the administration’s view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Salvadoran Officials Say for First Time US Has Authority Over 130 Detainees at Notorious Prison
"We are pleased that El Salvador publicly told the truth about what we all knew: that it's the United States that controls the fate of the Venezuelans," said one attorney.
Jul 08, 2025
A Monday court filing by attorneys for migrants being held in El Salvador's notorious maximum-security prison contained what one expert called a "huge" admission by Salvadoran officials that casts new doubt on the Trump administration's claims that it can't bring back the 130 men it sent to the facility.
In a filing submitted to Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., lawyers for four of the migrants included a document that the Salvadoran government had sent to the United Nations in response to an inquiry about their detention at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
Contrary to the Trump administration's claims—and those of far-right Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele—officials representing the Bukele government said in the filing that "the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities, by virtue of international agreements signed and in accordance with the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation in criminal matters."
The four men whose disappearances are being investigated by the U.N. Office of The High Commissioner for Human Rights Working Group are among the more than 100 migrants whom the Trump administration swiftly sent to CECOT in mid-March after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a centuries-old law that allows the U.S. government to expedite the deportations of non-citizens deemed to be a national security threat.
The law has previously only been invoked during wartime, but the administration has claimed the people sent to CECOT—citing questionable and threadbare evidence in many cases—are members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which the White House has claimed is working in connection with Venezuela's government.
As Common Dreams reported in May, the U.S. intelligence agencies never endorsed Trump's claim that the street gang was taking orders from Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro—raising one of many legal questions about the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act and his claim that Tren de Aragua has "invaded" the United States.
The filing on Monday by lawyers at Democracy Forward and the ACLU also called into question the administration's repeated claims that it has no authority to bring the migrants back from El Salvador, which has agreed to detain the men under a $6 million deal.
"The actions of the state of El Salvador have been limited to the implementation of a bilateral cooperation mechanism with another state, through which it has facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison infrastructure for the custody of persons detained within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement of that other State," the Salvadoran authorities told the U.N., according to the filing.
The lawyers also told Boasberg that the Trump administration was clearly aware of El Salvador's statements about the men being held at CECOT, as U.S. officials were copied in the Salvadorans' communication to the United Nations.
"We are pleased that El Salvador publicly told the truth about what we all knew: that it's the United States that controls the fate of the Venezuelans," Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the ACLU, told The New York Times. "That the United States did not provide us or the court with this information is extraordinary."
Boasberg has expressed frustration with the White House several times since first taking on the case regarding the use of the Alien Enemies Act. He ordered two deportation flights to be turned around in March, and said the following month that there was "probable cause" to hold administration officials in contempt of court for disobeying the order.
Last month, the judge ordered the administration to provide detainees at CECOT with habeas corpus relief and said the mass removal of the men was unlawful.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful, but ordered the White House to provide people with sufficient opportunity to contest their removal under the law.
Last week, a federal appeals court in New Orleans held a hearing on Trump's use of the law in a case that is likely to make its way to the Supreme Court.
In March, the case of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia became one of the most high-profile cases of the migrants who were sent to CECOT. The forced removal of Abrego Garcia, who had no criminal record and was accused by an anonymous police informant of being a gang member, was the result of an "administrative error," according to the U.S. Department of Justice, but both Trump and Bukele claimed they had no authority to bring him home.
Last month Abrego Garcia was transferred from El Salvador to a prison in Tennessee, where he faces charges of transporting migrants.
His lawyers last week described "severe beatings" that Abrego Garcia and other migrants sent to CECOT suffered when they arrived at the prison. A court filing also detailed "severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture."
"This," said journalist Megan Stack after Abrego Garcia's account was made public, "is where our government sends people with no due process."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Whistleblower Says Top DOJ Official Pushed to Ignore Court Orders to Carry Out Deportations
Emil Bove "does not belong on the federal bench," said one Democratic lawmaker ahead of confirmation hearings on the Justice Department official's judicial nomination.
Jun 24, 2025
With the Senate scheduled to hold a confirmation hearing on federal judicial nominee Emil Bove on Wednesday, Democrats urged the Republican Party to consider an explosive whistleblower complaint as they weighed Bove's nomination—one that revealed allegations that he directed U.S. Department of Justice staffers to ignore court orders to carry out the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda.
The whistleblower complaint was filed Tuesday with federal lawmakers and the DOJ's inspector general by a veteran lawyer in the agency's Office of Immigration Litigation, Erez Reuveni, who was fired in April after expressing concerns in federal court that the administration had wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.
In the 27-page complaint, filed by Reuveni's lawyers at the Government Accountability Project, the attorney described a meeting on March 14 in which Bove, the principal associate deputy attorney general, told his subordinates that President Donald Trump would soon invoke the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to quickly remove a group of immigrants from the U.S., sending more than 200 people to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
Bove "stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what," the complaint reads. He noted that "a court order would enjoin those removals before they could be effectuated," but said the DOJ "would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such order."
"Mr. Reuveni perceived that others in the room looked stunned, and he observed awkward, nervous glances among people in the room. Silence overtook the room," reads the complaint.
Reuveni also alleged that DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign lied in court on March 15, the day Trump invoked the AEA, when he told Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. that he didn't know whether any deportation flights were scheduled to leave in the coming 24-48 hours.
"Ensign had been present in the previous day's meeting when Emil Bove stated clearly that one or more planes containing individuals subject to the AEA would be taking off over the weekend no matter what," reads the complaint.
Reuveni said that by April, he was "frozen out" of discussions about the Trump administration's use of the AEA to carry out deportations.
That month, he said in a court hearing that the deportation of Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man with no criminal record, had been a mistake. Abrego Garcia was sent to CECOT in March. The administration repeatedly said it would not facilitate his return to the U.S. as it was ordered to by the U.S. Supreme Court, before Abrego Garcia was indicted in Nashville on smuggling charges and abruptly returned to the U.S., where he is still detained, earlier this month.
After the hearing, Ensign asked Reuveni in a phone call why he hadn't supported the administration's claims in court that Abrego Garcia was a terrorist and gang member. He replied that no evidence supported the claim, and noted that even if Abrego Garcia was a criminal he would still be entitled to due process, which he was not afforded when he was sent to El Salvador.
As The New York Times reported:
The next day, Mr. Reuveni was told he should sign an appeal brief making the terrorism claim against Mr. Abrego Garcia.
Mr. Reuveni's lawyers say he resisted, arguing that the law does not allow advocates to make new factual claims, which he saw as "contrary to law, frivolous, and untrue."
That led to a final standoff with his supervisor... who told him "he should sign the brief and that he had signed up for the responsibility to do so," the account states.
Mr. Reuveni responded, "I didn't sign up to lie."
He was placed on administrative leave hours later, and fired the next week.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) responded to the report by saying that Bove "does not belong on the federal bench."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urged Republicans on the panel "not to turn a blind eye to the dire consequences of confirming Mr. Bove to a lifetime position as a circuit court judge."
"The accusations against Emil Bove are serious. Not only do they speak to his failure to fulfill his ethical obligations as a lawyer, they also demonstrate his part in a broader pattern by the Trump-Bondi DOJ to undermine the rule of law," he said, referring to Attorney General Pam Bondi—who has been accused of "serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, applauded Reuveni "for having the great courage to come forward to expose the lawlessness of Mr. Bove and Trump's DOJ."
" Whistleblowers are the first line of defense to hold those in power accountable," said Raskin. "The extraordinary nature of the disclosure demands further investigation by Congress, and Judiciary Democrats are committed to getting to the truth on all of the Trump administration's efforts to turn the Department of Justice into a gangster state law firm devoted to violating the rights of the people, lying to federal judges, violating court orders, and persecuting those who uphold their oaths and speak the truth."
The news of the whistleblower complaint came two days after Judge Barbara Holmes of the Federal District Court in Nashville said Abrego Garcia should be freed from immigration detention.
Holmes took issue with the Trump administration's central claim about Abrego Garcia: that he is a member of the gang MS-13.
"Abrego has no reported criminal history of any kind. And his reputed gang membership is contradicted by the government's own evidence," said Holmes.
U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Holmes' ruling was "remarkable."
The opinion, she said, "completely [dismantled] all the allegations and 'evidence' against him as 'defy[ing] common sense' and not credible."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump in Los Angeles Is Exactly What We Have Been Warning About
This is a critical moment in U.S. history, and it demands that we stand strong in our opposition to the administration’s reckless and unlawful use of military force.
Jun 11, 2025
For years, we have warned against the danger of an unchecked president turning the military against American civilians.
In an extraordinary show of force, President Trump has federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard and deployed 300 of them, in addition to deploying 700 Marines, to quell protests in the Los Angeles area. All over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Why this abrupt, camera-ready escalation? White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller posted a video of a peaceful protest parade. “If we don’t fix this, we don’t have a country,” he shuddered. “Pass the BBB” — the budget bill now facing turbulence in Congress.
Trump’s administration is spoiling for a fight. It pops out emergency declarations like a Pez dispenser. It is also relying on flimsy legal justifications, as my colleagues have pointed out.
Presidents have deployed troops to control civil unrest only 30 times before in U.S. history. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits federal troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement. Soldiers are trained to defeat an enemy, not to de-escalate protests.
The situation in Los Angeles is bad. What might come next could be worse.
The last time that a president sent in the Guard without a clear request from a state’s governor was 1965, when troops were used to protect the voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery. (And even in that case, George Wallace waffled.)
To be clear, violent protests are not acceptable or productive. The federal government should be unobstructed in carrying out its lawful duties. Of course, the specter of masked ICE agents lurking in the lobbies of immigration courts, as has happened here in New York City, is itself willfully provocative.
In fact, in Los Angeles, protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful. The LAPD — hardly a department of pushovers — has been adamant that it has the situation under control. Not surprisingly, the troops have only fanned the protests. Newsom formally requested that the administration rescind the deployment, saying that it is “inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they’re actually needed.”
The situation in Los Angeles is bad. What might come next could be worse.
Trump’s executive order authorizes deployment of the Guard “at locations where protests against [ICE] functions are occurring or are likely to occur.” Where might that be? “We’re gonna have troops everywhere,” Trump declared.
As my colleague Elizabeth Goitein notes, “No president has ever federalized the National Guard for purposes of responding to potential future civil unrest anywhere in the country. Preemptive deployment is literally the opposite of deployment as a last resort. It would be a shocking abuse of power and the law.”
The most powerful repressive tool would be the Insurrection Act — a law that lets presidents deploy troops to suppress a rebellion or insurrection or curb domestic violence in extreme scenarios. Trump threatened to invoke it against Democratic-run cities during his 2024 campaign.
The Insurrection Act is, unfortunately, a mess of a law. Key words such as “rebellion” and “insurrection” are left undefined. Courts have given presidents a wide berth. Trump winked at this law by calling the protesters “insurrectionists.”
He has so far chosen to rely on a different law — one that has never been used to quell civil unrest without an accompanying Insurrection Act invocation. The administration claims that it is invoking this law only to protect federal personnel and property. But Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has requested that soldiers be authorized to detain and search protesters, functions normally prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.
It’s clear that Trump wants to use this showdown to expand enforcement powers.
The week before he stages a strongman-style military parade along the National Mall — complete with tanks, missiles, and military aircraft — Trump has claimed the right to preemptively authorize deployment of the military all across America.
That should be chilling to most Americans, who have enjoyed a firm line between police and the military as an essential component of our democracy. The deployment of the military against civilians should only be used in the most extreme cases as a last resort. Otherwise, as Elizabeth Goitein notes, “an army turned inward can quickly become an instrument of tyranny.”
Experts have already identified worst-case scenarios. George W. Bush administration official David Frum has sounded the alarm on the possibility of Trump using the military to influence the 2026 election.
If you want to learn more about all of this, here are reports we’ve published in the last few years on emergency powers, the Insurrection Act, the Posse Comitatus Act, the Alien Enemies Act, and martial law.
Once again, in the face of a lawless executive, the courts must now step up. The Supreme Court may want to avoid a conflict, but here, it may have no choice. It is imperative that it uphold checks against the use of military force against civilians.
And now that we know that the existing laws can be used, however tendentiously, to justify provocative military action, we must fix those laws so they cannot be abused again.
The Brennan Center has proposed reforms to the Insurrection Act, including defining the law’s critical terms and enforcing more checks on its use. We have also proposed reforms to strengthen the Posse Comitatus Act. Americans must be adamant, too, that even under existing statutes, presidents lack the power to declare martial law.
This is a critical moment in U.S. history, and it demands that we stand strong in our opposition to the administration’s reckless and unlawful use of military force, in Los Angeles and across the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Extends Block on Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations
One attorney in the case called the ruling "a powerful rebuke to the government's attempt to hurry people away to a gulag-type prison in El Salvador."
May 16, 2025
For the second time in less than a month, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled against the Trump administration's dubious use of an 18th century law to deport immigrants including at least one person with protected status without due process.
In a 7-2 ruling—with far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito dissenting—the high court found that President Donald Trump violated Venezuelan migrants' right to due process as a class by trying to fast-track their deportation to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison in El Salvador by invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act during peacetime.
The ruling is not a repudiation of Alien Enemies Act deportations and focuses solely on migrants' due process rights.
"Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."
"The detainees' interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty," the court's opinion states. "Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."
"But it is not optimal for this court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case," the court continued and, referring to the federal appellate court that "erred in dismissing the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction," said that "we remand the case to the 5th Circuit for that purpose."
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead counsel in the case, said Friday that "the court's decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government's attempt to hurry people away to a gulag-type prison in El Salvador."
"The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance," Gelernt added.
The Supreme Court opinion noted the case of Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man with protected status who was wrongfully deported to CECOT in March. Last month, the high court unanimously ruled that Trump must facilitate Abrego García's return to the United States. The Trump administration has resisted the order, despite the president proclaiming that "if the Supreme Court said, 'Bring somebody back,' I would do that."
Steve Vadeck, a professor at Georgetown Law Center, told CNN Friday that "because lower courts have blocked use of the [Alien Enemies Act] in every other district in which the president has sought to invoke it, that means it's effectively pausing all removals under the act until the 5th Circuit—and, presumably, the Supreme Court itself—conclusively resolves whether they're legal and how much process is due if so."
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines—who was appointed by Trump—issued the first court ruling supporting Alien Enemies Act deportations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gabbard Fires Intel Officials After Memo Counters Trump Lies About Migrants Sent to El Salvador Prison
Critics called the ousters "ominous" and warned that "an intelligence service will not protect you from real-life threats if its members get fired for not lying."
May 14, 2025
Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial director of national intelligence, is generating alarm this week for firing two top officials after a memo contradicting the administration's claims about deported migrants was made public.
As Fox News first reported Tuesday, Gabbard fired Mike Collins, acting chair of the National Intelligence Council, and his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof, and moved the NIC from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
As The Hill detailed:
Collins has spent nearly three decades in the intelligence community and has served as chief of staff for the CIA's deputy director. He started his career as an analyst focused on East Asia.
Langan-Riekhof also has more than 30 years of experience in the intelligence community, including as an expert on the Middle East. The ODNI previously listed her as an exceptional analyst. She also previously served as director of the Strategic Futures Group at the National Intelligence Council.
While an ODNI spokesperson told The Hill that "the director is working alongside President Trump to end the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community," critics framed the firings as "the DEFINITION of politicizing intelligence."
"I am concerned about the apparent removal of senior leadership at the National Intelligence Council without any explanation except vague accusations made in the media," Congressman Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, told The Washington Post. "Absent evidence to justify the firings, the workforce can only conclude that their jobs are contingent on producing analysis that is aligned with the president's agenda, rather than truthful and apolitical."
The NIC leaders were fired after last week's release of an NIC memo confirming that U.S. intelligence agencies never agreed with Trump's claim that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro controls the criminal gang Tren de Aragua. The April 7 document states that "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."
Although, as the Post noted, "it was unclear what, if any, direct role Collins or Langan-Riekhof had in drafting the assessment," its release provoked pushback from Gabbard, who said last week that it was "outrageous that as President Trump and his administration work hard every day to make America safe by deporting these violent criminals, some in the media remain intent on twisting and manipulating intelligence assessments to undermine the president's agenda to keep the American people safe."
Trump has used dubious claims about Maduro controlling the gang to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center as part of his mass deportation agenda.
Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) said on social media Wednesday: "Gabbard is purging intelligence officials over a report that the Trump administration finds politically inconvenient. Whatever the administration is trying to protect... it's not our national security."
Other critics called Gabbard's moves "ominous" and warned that "an intelligence service will not protect you from real-life threats if its members get fired for not lying."
The U.S. intelligence community (IC) "provides analysis independent of policy preferences," said James Madison University professor and former CIA analyst Stephen Marrin. "When those in power do not want to hear inconvenient facts and unwanted interpretation and punish messengers that provide it, that undermines the reason the IC was created in the first place."
Jonathan Panikoff, a former career U.S. intelligence officer who is now a director in the Atlantic Council's Middle East Program, said that "having spent five years working at the NIC, I can personally attest the [organization] is the heartbeat of apolitical U.S. all-source analysis, traditionally drawing the best of the IC's analysts together to tackle and produce assessments on the hardest issues. Anything that reduces its independence because policymakers don't like the independent conclusions it reaches, is the definition of politicization they are decrying. Mike and Maria are unbelievable leaders and IC professionals, not political actors."
Eric Brewer, who also worked for NIC, expressed full agreement with Panikoff's "excellent comments" and issued his own warning.
"This is a big deal. The result will be an IC less willing to tell the president and other leaders what they need to know rather than what they want to hear. America will be less secure because of it," Brewer said. "The professionals in the IC can withstand a lot, and will no doubt do their utmost to continue to provide objective assessments. But this act is blatant politicization and will have a chilling effect."
The memo that seemingly led to the NIC firings was revealed as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Lauren Harper, the group's Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, shared the Post's reporting about the ousters on social media Wednesday along with an observation.
"The director of national intelligence's FOIA website (which has reappeared after the entire site was briefly down) no longer has a reading room of released documents or links to its FOIA regulations which, were we to be picky, violates the EFOIA amendments of 1996," Harper highlighted. "Amazing timing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Upping Pressure on Supreme Court, Judge Approves Trump's Use of Alien Enemies Act to Expel Migrants
Judge Stephanie Haines' ruling contrasted with recent decisions by three other federal judges.
May 13, 2025
A federal judge's ruling in Pennsylvania on Tuesday marked the first time a court has decided the Trump administration can invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expel Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, and one policy expert said the ruling "further pressures the Supreme Court to act soon" to determine once and for all whether the mass deportation campaign is lawful.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, an appointee of President Donald Trump in the Western District of Pennsylvania, contrasted with those of federal judges in Colorado, New York, and Texas, who have found Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act exceeds its scope.
The law enables the government to swiftly deport migrants during an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" by a foreign nation. The Trump administration has claimed the Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua has ties to the South American country's government—an assertion that U.S. intelligence agencies have not endorsed—and has designated the group a foreign terrorist organization.
Having invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March, Trump has deported more than a hundred Venezuelans accused of being members of the gang to El Salvador.
Haines said in her ruling that she hadn't resolved whether the administration can use the law to remove gang members from the country, and rejected a request by the White House to find that an invasion or predatory incursion could include migration.
But she also disagreed with other courts' rulings that found the Alien Enemies Act relates specifically to military invasions, saying instead that it covers "acts by a foreign terrorist organization."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said her reasoning was "exceptionally weak."
"Her decision, which applies only in the Western District of Pennsylvania, will be appealed to the 3rd Circuit, which will likely put a hold on [Alien Enemies Act] removals out of her district," said Reichlin-Melnick. "But this further pressures the Supreme Court to act soon—potentially before the end of the term."
Reichlin-Melnick and others emphasized that Haines ordered the administration to give migrants far more notice of their impending deportations under the law. The White House had proposed 12-24 hours; Haines ordered officials to provide 21 days' notice in both Spanish and English.
The ACLU last month called on the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act.
The justices ruled last month that people targeted for removal under the law are entitled to challenge their removal, without providing a timeline.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warning of Grave Threat to Free Speech, Judge Frees Rümeysa Öztürk
"There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the op-ed," U.S. District Judge William Sessions III said, referring to Öztürk's article urging divestment from Israel.
May 09, 2025
Rümeysa Öztürk, one of several pro-Palestine scholars kidnapped and imprisoned by the Trump administration under its dubious interpretation of an 18th-century law and a Cold War-era national security measure, was released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody Friday following a federal judge's order.
U.S. District Judge William Sessions III in Vermont ruled that Öztürk—a 30-year-old Turkish Ph.D. student at Tufts University in Massachusetts and Fulbright scholar—was illegally detained in March, when masked plainclothes federal agents snatched her off a suburban Boston street in broad daylight in what eyewitnesses and advocates likened to a kidnapping and flew her to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Louisiana.
"Thank you so much for all the support and love," Öztürk told supporters outside the facility following her release.
The government admits that Öztürk committed no crime. She was targeted because of an
opinion piece published in Tufts Daily advocating divestment from Israel amid the U.S.-backed nation's genocidal assault on Gaza and its apartheid, occupation, ethnic cleansing, and colonization in the rest of Palestine. Öztürk was arrested despite a U.S. State Department determination that there were no grounds for revoking her visa.
"There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the op-ed," said Sessions, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. "That literally is the case."
BREAKING: a federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to immediately release on bail Rumeysa Ozturk, a Muslim grad student at Tufts University who was abducted and abused by ICE agents, all because she wrote an editorial, yes, an editorial, critical of the Israeli government's genocide.
[image or embed]
— CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) ( @cairnational.bsky.social) May 9, 2025 at 11:12 AM
"There is no evidence here as to the motivation, absent consideration of the op-ed, so that creates unto itself a very significant substantial claim that the op-ed—that is, the expression of one's opinion as ordinarily protected by the First Amendment—form the basis of this particular detention," the judge continued, adding that Öztürk's "continued detention potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens."
"There is absolutely no evidence that she has engaged in violence, or advocated violence, she has no criminal record," Sessions noted. "She has done nothing other than, essentially, attend her university and expand her contacts in her community in such a supportive way."
"Her continued detention cannot stand," he added.
The Trump administration has openly flouted judge's rulings—including a U.S. Supreme Court order—that direct it to release detained immigrants. Sessions' Friday ruling follows his earlier order to send Öztürk to Vermont and Wednesday's 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmation of the judge's directive, both of which have been ignored by the administration.
Seeing that Öztürk was still in ICE custody hours after his order, Sessions reiterated his directive Friday afternoon.
"In light of the court's finding of no flight risk and no danger to the community, petitioner is to be released from ICE custody immediately on her own recognizance, without any form of body-worn GPS or other ICE monitoring at this time," the judge wrote.
Mahsa Khanbabai, Öztürk's attorney, told Courthouse News Service she's "relieved and ecstatic" that her client has been ordered released.
"Unfortunately, it is 45 days too late," Khanbabai lamented. "She has been imprisoned all these days for simply writing an op-ed that called for human rights and dignity for the people in Palestine. When did speaking up against oppression become a crime? When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?"
The Trump administration has dubiously invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows the president to detain dor deport citizens of countries with which the U.S. is at war, in a bid to justify Öztürk's persecution. The administration has also cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which empowers the secretary of state to order the expulsion of noncitizens whose presence in the United States is deemed detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests.
"When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?"
Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who lied about Öztürk supporting Hamas—has used such determinations to target people for engaging in constitutionally protected speech and protest.
"We do it every day," Rubio said in March in defense of the policy. "Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas."
Rubio has invoked the law to target numerous other students who the government admits committed no crimes. These include Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Yunseo Chung—all permanent U.S. residents—as well as Ranjani Srinivasan and others. Far-right, pro-Israel groups like Betar and Canary Mission have compiled lists containing the names of these and other pro-Palestine students that are shared with the Trump administration for possible deportation.
Foreign nationals—and some U.S. citizens wrongfully swept up in the Trump administration's mass deportation effort—are imprisoned in facilities including private, for-profit detention centers, where there are widespread reports of poor conditions and alleged abuses.
These include denial of medical care, insufficient access to feminine hygiene products, and rotten food at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center, where Öztürk—who, according to Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), has received no religious or dietary accommodations and had her hijab forcibly removed—is being held.
Öztürk also suffers from asthma and told Sessions via Zoom Friday that her attacks have increased behind bars due to stress. Dr. Jessica McCannon, a pulmonologist, testified that Öztürk's asthma appears to be poorly controlled in ICE custody, according to
courtroom coverage on the social media site Bluesky by freelance journalist Joshua J. Friedman.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was among those who on Friday demanded Öztürk's immediate release, while other lawmakers and human rights and free speech defenders celebrated Sessions' decision.
"Rümeysa Öztürk has finally been ordered released," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said on social media. "She has been unlawfully detained for more than six weeks in an ICE facility in Louisiana, more than 1,500 miles away from Somerville. This is a victory for Rümeysa, for justice, and for our democracy."
In the United States, we guarantee free speech. No one here will lose their rights and freedom for publishing an op-ed. This is a win for the rule of law. Rümeysa is free!
[image or embed]
— Representative Becca Balint ( @balint.house.gov) May 9, 2025 at 1:24 PM
Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement that "it is unfathomable that in the United States legal system, it takes 45 days for a judge to rule that people can't be put behind bars for writing op-eds the government doesn't like."
"Without a system committed to its principles, the Constitution is just words on paper, and they don't mean much if this can happen here," Stern continued. "Öztürk's abduction and imprisonment is one of the most shameful chapters in First Amendment history."
"We're thankful that Judge Sessions moved it one step closer to an end and we call on the Trump administration to release Öztürk immediately and not attempt to stall with any further authoritarian nonsense," he added.
Amid President Donald Trump's defunding threats and pressure from ICE officials, universities have told "many hundreds" of international students that they have lost their immigration status and must immediately self-deport. These notifications were based on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) termination of students' records on the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a database used by schools and authorities to access visa information.
Although DHS admitted in court that it had no authority to use SEVIS to revoke students' status, the Trump administration still canceled more than 1,800 visas before reversing course last month pending an ICE policy revamp.
In addition to moving to deport pro-Palestine students, the Trump administration is sending Latin American immigrants—including wrongfully expelled Maryland man Kilmar Abrego García—to a notorious prison in El Salvador, and the president has repeatedly threatened to send natural-born U.S. citizens there.
As with Öztürk and other detained students, the Trump administration has dubiously invoked the Alien Enemies Act in trying to deport García and others. However, federal judges—including multiple Trump appointees—have thwarted some of these efforts.
On Friday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Millersaid that Trump and his advisers are "actively looking at" suspending habeas corpus as a means of overcoming judicial pushback against the administration's deportation blitz.
"Well, the Constitution is clear—and that of course is the supreme law of the land—that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion," Miller told reporters at the White House. No foreign entity has invaded the United States since Japanese forces landed in the Aleutian Islands in the then-territory of Alaska during World War II.
Critics pointed out that Miller's proposal is, in fact, blatantly unconstitutional.
"Since it appears needs to be said: The authority to suspend habeas corpus lies with Congress, not the president, and is only legal during extreme circumstances of rebellion or invasion," Democratic pollster and strategist Matt McDermott said on Bluesky. "Stephen Miller is full of shit."
It wasn't just Democrats and Palestine defenders who cheered Sessions' ruling Friday. Billy Binion, who covers "all things injustice" for the libertarian website Reason, said on social media that the government's "entire case against her is that... she wrote an op-ed."
"Hard to overstate how bleak—and frankly embarrassing—it is that the Trump administration wants to jail and deport someone for speech," he continued. "In America."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Can We Build a World of Sanctuary Cities?
A sanctuary city is a place of reverence, committed to the enormous value that all people are fully human. This is the first step to true collective safety.
May 08, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump and friends claim control over the country, celebrating their war on migrants—“the enemy” of the moment, whom they’ve created and dehumanized—much of America writhes in shock and irony as it looks on.
The president who hates criminals is also our criminal-in-chief. But fortunately (for him), he’s above the law! Court rulings don’t apply to him—not when he’s busy keeping America safe from the boogeymen. To be an exalted leader, you need to keep a serious percentage of the populace in a state of simple-minded fear: The enemy are very, very bad people. They belong to gangs. They eat our pets. But I will protect you.
I’ll reopen Guantánamo. I’ll reopen Alcatraz. And the electorate can sigh with a sense of relief and safety. He’s bringing back our greatness—that is to say, our racist certainty. He’s recreating a country that real Americans can understand... one that’s like them.
Reopening Gitmo, reopening Alcatraz—depriving innocent and marginalized people of the right to pursue life—will not keep us safe.
At least this is how it seems. But before I get too deeply immersed in Trump-inspired sarcasm, let me grapple with some deeper reality as well. American “greatness” has primarily been military in nature: us vs. somebody! The nation’s mainstream consciousness, be it Democratic or Republican, cannot stop playing war. At least this has been the case throughout my lifetime.
As Jessica Schulberg and Paul Blumenthal recently pointed out at Huffington Post, for instance, the Bush-era War on Terror helped give birth to Trump’s war on migrants: today’s terrorists, the “invaders” of the present moment. They quote J. Wells Dixon, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who represented Gitmo detainees under Bush. He notes that Trump’s initial plan to open Gitmo was “an effort to outsource detention and torture to avoid the constraints of U.S. law. It’s the natural consequence and evolution of what we’ve seen throughout the last 20 years, certainly with the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program and the use of black sites overseas.”
However, to Trump’s frustration, there was “too much rule of law” at Gitmo, making matters too difficult to turn the hellish site into a dumping ground for thousands of migrants. Trump’s waging war! The last thing he needs is rule of law. So his next step was to work out an agreement with El Salvador’s authoritarian president, Nayib Bukele, allegedly paying El Salvador some $6 million to send American migrants to the country’s maximum-security hellhole, the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo. This would allow Trump’s war to continue.
As Schulberg and Blumenthal write:
On March 15, shortly after ICE sent all migrants in Guantánamo back to U.S. facilities, Trump signed an executive order, claiming that Tren de Aragua had “invaded” the U.S., and that any Venezuelan migrant age 14 or older with alleged ties to the gang could be removed under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime authority only previously invoked during the War of 1812 and both World Wars.
Some good—or at least hopeful—news from all this is that the opposition to Trump’s war-gaming isn’t sheerly marginal. The opposition is also politically structural, such as, for instance the existence of sanctuary cities—whose governments refuse to cooperate, or allow their police departments to cooperate, with ICE, despite the risks they face for doing so.
For instance, a few days ago, the Trump administration sued Colorado and the city of Denver “for allegedly,” according to Truthout, “obstructing federal immigration enforcement. The suit objects to sanctuary policies—local initiatives to protect immigrant communities from federal deportation efforts—and argues that such policies encroach on federal authority.”
“This move follows Donald Trump’s recent executive order instructing the DOJ to penalize sanctuary cities, including threatening to withhold federal funding.”
Obviously, this is no small challenge to face. Maybe Trump will wind up succeeding with his authoritarian agenda—God help the migrants, God help all so us—and if that happens, humanitarian opposition will have to continue nonetheless, no matter how difficult things get. But opposition is also present right now. So is political belief in a higher value than waging war and defeating an “enemy.”
In response to the federal lawsuit against Denver, a statement from the mayor’s office declared that the city “will not be bullied or blackmailed, least of all by an administration that has little regard for the law and even less for the truth.”
This is not simply an “us vs. them” confrontation between the Trump-MAGA world and progressives. The confrontation is both pragmatic and spiritual: What keeps us safe? Reopening Gitmo, reopening Alcatraz—depriving innocent and marginalized people of the right to pursue life—will not keep us safe. What we must embrace and learn to understand, both individually and collectively, is what I call empathic sanity: the ability to live as one, to value everyone’s full humanity.
Turns out there are more than 200 sanctuary cities in the United States. As George Cassidy Payne writes at Medium, a sanctuary city is a place of reverence, committed to the enormous value that all people are fully human. All people are equal.
“In this context,” he writes, “sanctuary cities offer more than a geographical claim. They challenge us to look past a person’s nationality and recognize their humanity. They call us to prioritize their place of residence, viewing them as global citizens, not by their place of birth. In the sanctuary, people are treated with radical respect; here, no one has the right to harm another without their consent, nor to judge anyone based on their skin color, accent, citizenship status, or nation of origin.”
This sounds like a first step in the creation of international security.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy