Trump's push for deportations without due process is meant to cause a constitutional crisis

Salon - Mar 17th, 2025

The Trump administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, claiming it is necessary to address what they describe as an 'invasion' and 'predatory incursion' from Venezuela, particularly by the Tren de Aragua gang. This move, orchestrated by senior adviser Stephen Miller and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, saw the deportation of detainees to El Salvador, despite a federal judge's restraining order. Trump administration's actions suggest a significant departure from previous uses of the law, which was historically reserved for wartime threats, raising concerns about constitutional overreach and potential misuse of executive power.

The invocation of this rarely used law, last seen during World War II, marks a troubling development in U.S. immigration policy, with implications for civil liberties and due process. Critics argue that this action could lead to further erosion of constitutional protections and is symptomatic of a broader strategy to undermine judicial authority. The administration's defiance of judicial orders indicates a looming showdown over the balance of powers, with the potential to escalate to the Supreme Court. This situation has intensified fears among immigrants and legal residents, who now face increased threats of detention and deportation without due process, signaling a precarious new era for immigration enforcement in America.

Tren De Aragua Trump Supreme Court Immigration Policy Kristi Noem Stephen Miller Venezuela Alien Enemies Act Civil Liberties Constitutional Crisis Deportations

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article tackles a timely and significant topic related to immigration policy and executive power, with potential implications for civil liberties and governance in the United States. While it effectively captures reader attention and addresses public interest issues, the article suffers from a lack of balance and substantiated evidence. The absence of clear sourcing and the presentation of a singular perspective detract from its reliability and credibility. Although the article is engaging and readable, the sensational tone and limited transparency may hinder its impact on informed public discourse. Overall, the story highlights important issues but requires more balanced and evidence-based reporting to fully inform and engage its audience.

Accuracy

The story contains several factual claims that require verification, such as Elon Musk's statements about Democrats and immigration, and the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act. While the story outlines these claims, it lacks direct evidence or citations to support them. For instance, the claim that undocumented immigrants cannot collect benefits or vote is accurate, but the connection to Musk's alleged statements needs more substantiation. Additionally, the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act by the Trump administration is a serious claim that requires more concrete evidence and context to ensure accuracy. The article's assertions about deportations and the involvement of Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem also need further verification, as these are significant claims with potentially broad implications.

Balance

The article appears to present a singular perspective, focusing heavily on the potential misuse of power by the Trump administration and the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. It lacks a balanced representation of viewpoints, as it does not include responses or counterarguments from those involved, such as the Trump administration or its supporters. The absence of these perspectives creates an imbalance, as the reader is not exposed to a full spectrum of opinions or justifications for the actions described. This one-sided approach may lead to a skewed understanding of the events and their implications.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and engaging style, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the narrative. However, the tone is somewhat sensational, which may detract from the objective presentation of information. The language used is accessible, but the lack of clear sourcing and evidence for key claims may lead to confusion about the veracity of the information. Overall, while the article is readable, the clarity of the content is compromised by the absence of substantiated facts.

Source quality

The article does not provide clear attributions to credible sources or direct quotes from involved parties, which undermines its reliability. It relies heavily on unnamed sources and interpretations rather than authoritative statements or documents. The lack of direct citations or links to primary sources, such as official statements or legal documents, diminishes the article's credibility. Furthermore, the absence of interviews or statements from key figures like Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, or Kristi Noem limits the depth and reliability of the reporting.

Transparency

The article does not adequately disclose the basis for its claims or the methodology used to gather information. There is a lack of transparency regarding how the information was obtained and whether there are any potential conflicts of interest. The article does not provide sufficient context or background on the Alien Enemies Act or the specific legal and political considerations involved. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to assess the impartiality and validity of the claims presented.