What is the 1798 law that Trump used to deport migrants?

BBC - Mar 17th, 2025

More than 200 Venezuelans, identified by the White House as gang members, have been deported from the US to a notorious mega-jail in El Salvador. Of these, 137 were removed under the Alien Enemies Act, a law invoked by President Donald Trump, accusing the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) of threatening an invasion on US soil. This controversial move, criticized by rights groups, came despite a judge's temporary block. The White House contended that the judge's order was unlawful and was issued after the deportations had already occurred.

The Alien Enemies Act, granting presidential powers for deportation during threats or war, was last used in WWII. Trump's action, seen as unjustly targeting Venezuelan migrants, echoes past uses during wartime against people of Japanese, German, and Italian descent. Rights groups like the ACLU argue the act's use violates the law since the US is not at war. Venezuela condemned the deportation as a dark echo of history's atrocities. Critics assert the act's invocation is more about targeting Venezuelans based on ancestry rather than proven gang activity.

Tren De Aragua Donald Trump Immigration Policy Aclu Alien Enemies Act Nayib Bukele Venezuelan Deportation Venezuelan Migration

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of a complex and controversial issue involving the deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act. It effectively highlights the legal and ethical challenges surrounding the use of this historical law by President Trump. The story is timely and relevant, addressing ongoing debates about immigration policy and executive authority. It also engages public interest by presenting multiple perspectives, although it could benefit from a more balanced representation of viewpoints and detailed legal analysis.

The factual accuracy of the article is generally strong, though certain claims require further verification, particularly regarding the legality of the act's invocation without a declared war. The source quality is solid, with credible references to administration officials and rights groups, but could be enhanced with more diverse voices, including legal experts and deportees. The article is clear and readable, with a logical structure that aids comprehension, though simplifying complex legal terms would improve accessibility.

Overall, the article successfully informs readers about a significant issue with potential implications for public policy and societal values. It has the potential to influence public opinion and spark meaningful discussion, though its impact could be greater with more in-depth analysis and a broader range of perspectives.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims that are largely accurate but require verification. The deportation of over 200 Venezuelans, including 137 under the Alien Enemies Act, is a central claim that matches known reports. The invocation of the Alien Enemies Act by President Trump is consistent with historical and legal context, as the act was indeed passed in 1798 and used in past conflicts. However, the legality of using this act without a declared war, as well as the precise number of deportees, needs further verification. Additionally, the story accurately cites criticism from rights groups like the ACLU, though it would benefit from more detailed legal perspectives to fully assess the claims of illegality.

Balance

The article presents multiple perspectives, including those of the White House, rights groups, and international figures like the President of El Salvador. However, there is a noticeable emphasis on criticism of the deportations and the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, which may lead to perceived bias. While the story includes Trump's rationale for the deportations, the inclusion of more supportive views or neutral legal analysis could enhance balance. The perspectives of the deportees themselves or their legal representatives are notably absent, which could provide a more rounded view of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information from the deportations to the legal and historical context of the Alien Enemies Act. The language is straightforward and accessible, making the complex legal issues understandable to a general audience. However, some sections could benefit from additional clarity, particularly the explanation of the legal implications of the judge's order and the administration's response. Simplifying legal jargon and providing definitions for less familiar terms would further enhance clarity.

Source quality

The story cites credible sources such as a senior administration official and rights groups like the ACLU, which enhances its reliability. The use of historical context regarding the Alien Enemies Act is well-supported by historical records. However, the article could benefit from a broader range of sources, particularly legal experts who could provide an in-depth analysis of the act's applicability. Additionally, direct quotes from the deportees or their legal representatives would strengthen the article's credibility by providing firsthand accounts.

Transparency

The article provides some context for the use of the Alien Enemies Act and the legal controversy surrounding it. However, it lacks detailed explanation of the legal processes involved and the specific reasons for the deportations beyond general accusations of gang affiliation. The story could improve transparency by outlining the methodology for determining gang membership and the criteria used by the administration to justify the deportations. Furthermore, providing more information on the judge's order and the legal arguments presented would offer clearer insight into the judicial proceedings.