Trump’s message was unequivocal: he credited Bukele for his “understanding” in dealing with what he called a “horrible situation” that he blamed on “incompetent Democrat leadership.” In his tweet, Trump went further by describing the apprehended migrants as “the monsters sent into our Country by Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats.” This rhetoric, laden with political hyperbole, has drawn both praise and condemnation from different corners of the political landscape.

The deportation operation itself was significant. A total of 261 illegal aliens were reportedly deported to El Salvador in a single day. Of these, 137 individuals were deported under the Alien Enemies Act, 101 were Venezuelans deported under Title 8, 21 were Salvadoran gang members associated with MS-13, and two were classified as MS-13 ringleaders—marked as “special cases” for El Salvador. The offenses attributed to these individuals ranged from kidnapping and child sexual abuse to aggravated assault and robbery, underscoring the administration’s framing of these migrants as a direct threat to U.S. security.Yet, even as Trump’s tweet celebrated this enforcement action, legal challenges soon emerged. A federal judge—U.S. District Judge James Boasberg—ordered an immediate halt to further deportations of the alleged gang members, citing timing issues and the fact that the migrants were already outside U.S. airspace when the judge’s order was issued.

I. The Historical and Legal Context of the Alien Enemies Act

A. Origins of the Alien Enemies Act

The Alien Enemies Act was enacted in 1798, during a period of intense international rivalry and conflict. Originally designed as a wartime measure, it granted the U.S. government the authority to detain and deport citizens and residents of nations considered hostile. Over the centuries, the law has been largely dormant, its provisions seldom invoked. However, in recent years, its application has been revisited by proponents of a hardline immigration stance.

The Act’s language permits the deportation of individuals from “enemy” countries without the benefit of a hearing—a power that has drawn both legal scrutiny and political controversy. Critics argue that using such an archaic statute in modern times poses significant risks to civil liberties and due process. Yet, supporters maintain that it is a necessary tool for ensuring national security, particularly in situations where the perceived threat is high.

B. The Controversial Reintroduction Under the Trump Administration

The Trump administration, known for its aggressive immigration policies, revived the use of the Alien Enemies Act as part of its broader strategy to curb illegal immigration and dismantle transnational criminal organizations. By invoking this law, the administration sought to bypass lengthy judicial procedures and send a swift message to both domestic audiences and international adversaries.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that the judge’s order had “no lawful basis” because it came too late, emphasizing that a single judge could not dictate the movements of “an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists” who had already been expelled.On the international front, President Bukele of El Salvador posted graphic footage on X (formerly Twitter) showing heavily armed Salvadoran police escorting the apprehended migrants into what he termed a “terrorism confinement center.” Bukele noted that the detainees, who included suspected gang members, would remain in the facility for at least a year. The footage showed migrants with their heads down, hands behind their necks, and even shaving their hair—a visual meant to underscore both discipline and the seriousness with which the Salvadoran government was treating the matter. Bukele explained that these measures, combined with ongoing programs like the Zero Idleness initiative involving over 40,000 inmates, were intended to make the country’s prison system self-sustainable while gathering vital intelligence to dismantle the remaining structures of MS-13.

Even high-ranking U.S. officials found reasons to comment. Secretary of State Marco Rubio lauded Bukele as “not only the strongest security leader in our region, but also a great friend of the U.S.,” thanking him for his “assistance and friendship.”

This extensive article delves into the multiple dimensions of this controversial development—from the historical background of the Alien Enemies Act to the legal debates, political fallout, and its potential impact on U.S.-El Salvador relations and domestic immigration policy. We begin by exploring the origins and implications of the Alien Enemies Act, then move to an in-depth review of the deportation operation and the subsequent legal and political reactions. Finally, we reflect on what this might mean for the future of immigration enforcement and bilateral relations in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.

In Trump’s rhetoric, the Act was portrayed as a mechanism to protect the nation from “monsters” and to reclaim U.S. borders from what he depicted as the chaotic policies of the “Radical Left Democrats.” The language used not only polarized public opinion but also set the stage for a series of legal challenges that would test the boundaries of executive power in immigration enforcement.

C. Legal Debates and Constitutional Concerns

The deployment of the Alien Enemies Act in the modern era raises complex legal questions. Constitutional scholars have debated whether the broad powers granted by the Act are compatible with contemporary interpretations of due process and the right to a fair hearing. Critics contend that deporting individuals without a hearing contravenes fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution, while supporters argue that in matters of national security, swift and decisive action is paramount.

Moreover, the use of this law in a politically charged environment further complicates its interpretation. The administration’s decision to deploy the Act against certain groups—particularly those labeled as gang members—has led to accusations of selective enforcement and politicization of the law. As legal challenges mount, courts are being called upon to reconcile centuries-old legislation with modern legal standards and human rights norms.

II. The Deportation Operation: Details, Numbers, and Breakdown

A. Scale and Scope of the Operation

On the day in question, a total of 261 illegal aliens were deported to El Salvador—a figure that, while significant, represents just one facet of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. The operation involved multiple legal mechanisms and targeted various groups, each with distinct legal classifications and backgrounds.

The breakdown is as follows:

• 137 individuals were deported under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

• 101 Venezuelans were removed under Title 8 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

  • 21 Salvadoran nationals were identified as members of the notorious MS-13 gang.

  • 2 individuals were designated as MS-13 ringleaders and treated as “special cases” for deportation to El Salvador.

  These figures were disclosed by a senior Trump administration official in an interview with Fox News, underscoring the scale of the operation and the administration’s commitment to using all available legal tools to enforce immigration laws.

  B. The Nature of the Offenses

  The deported individuals were not ordinary undocumented migrants; they were linked to serious criminal activities. Rap sheets detailed offenses including:

  • Kidnapping

  • Child sexual abuse

  • Aggravated assault

  • Prostitution

  • Robbery

  • Aggravated assault of a police officer

  Such charges provided the administration with a legal and political justification for their swift removal. By highlighting the criminal background of these individuals, Trump and his supporters argued that the deportations were necessary to protect American communities and maintain public safety.

  C. Timing and International Airspace: The Judge’s Intervention

  A pivotal moment in the operation came when a federal judge intervened. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered an immediate halt to further deportations of the alleged gang members. The judge’s decision was based on procedural timing—the planes carrying the migrants had already reached international airspace by the time the order was issued. A senior Trump administration official explained, “We did not defy a court order. The order came too late, and illegals were already in international airspace.”

  This judicial intervention highlights the tension between rapid executive action and the checks and balances provided by the judiciary. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt further defended the administration’s actions by asserting that the judge’s order “had no lawful basis” since it was issued after the migrants had already been expelled from U.S. territory.

  ---

  III. Trump’s Message: Rhetoric, Rhetorical Targets, and Political Messaging

  A. Trump’s Social Media Declaration

  In a tweet that quickly became a focal point of controversy, President Trump thanked President Nayib Bukele for his “understanding” and cooperation. Trump’s message, laden with his trademark provocative language, read:

  “Thank you to El Salvador and, in particular, President Bukele, for your understanding of this horrible situation, which was allowed to happen to the United States because of incompetent Democrat leadership. We will not forget.”

  Trump went on to refer to the deported migrants as “the monsters sent into our Country by Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats.” This choice of words was not accidental—it was designed to appeal to his base by framing the deportation operation as a necessary corrective measure against what he characterized as failed immigration policies under the Biden administration.