Are We Really Debating the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 in the Context of Deporting Venezuelan Gangs Under the Trump Administration?

Here we are in 2025 debating whether it is legal and constitutional to utilize a law from 1798 to deport illegal immigrants and protect national security. Under the John Adams administration, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed to give the president almost unrestricted powers to deport non-citizens and arrest those who criticized the government under false pretenses, and of those four laws, the only one that did not expire is the Alien Enemies Act. It is no surprise, then, that President Donald Trump has invoked this last remaining one in order to crown himself additional powers to deport members of gangs and cartels. Although there is an argument to be made about whether Venezuelan gangs have been causing problems in the United States, based on the past usage of the law, perhaps this is one part of history that is better left in the books.

Even in 1798, our founding fathers and upcoming politicians under the newly-established United States of America fiercely debated the validity of and danger posed by the Alien and Sedition Acts. As the modern Republican and Democratic Parties did not exist at that time, the Federalist Party favored the new laws passed by Congress, and the Democratic-Republican Party resisted them. In fact, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote up the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, respectively, to urge the states to oppose or nullify these unconstitutional laws as an abuse of power by the executive branch (Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution took the radical position of nullification, while Madison’s Virginia Resolution was a bit more moderate). John Adams and Alexander Hamilton defended the Alien and Sedition Acts, claiming that Jefferson’s Republicans were “more Frenchmen than Americans” in an echo that seems eerily similar to how modern Democrats will label you as agents of Vladimir Putin if you advocate for negotiating peace with Russia and prefer Americans to stay out of Ukraine. Under the Sedition Act, people, such as Representative Matthew Lyon and journalist James Callendar were imprisoned for writing “false, scandalous, and malicious” content against President John Adams and his Federalist-controlled government, and this clear violation of the First Amendment’s free speech clause is reminiscent of attempts by the modern Democratic Party to censor speech, often through social media platforms, that is deemed as “misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation” (it is not simply a cliché to say that “history repeats itself”).

Although the Naturalization Act (increasing the amount of time that an immigrant must live in the United States to become a citizen from five to fourteen years), Alien Friends Act (allowing the president to investigate and deport non-citizens who were deemed a threat to the country), and Sedition Act expired; the Alien Enemies Act, which gives the president the authority to arbitrarily deport or detain any non-citizen who originated from a country that the United States Congress declared war against or that was invading the United States, still remains on the books. In fact, it was invoked during the War of 1812 (ironically by James Madison), World War I, and World War II, where it was used as justification to intern Japanese, German, and Italian Americans (some of which were citizens). The fascist concentration camps established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s executive order (outside of Congress) rounded up citizens and non-citizens alike and forced them, without due process, into prison towns against their will (Japanese internment camps). Clearly this was unconstitutional, but of course, a supermajority of Americans agreed that it was necessary for the national security of the United States, and they were willing to overlook the Bill of Rights for the purposes of the illusion of safety. This is why we should not allow a majority vote to be able to take away the rights of the minority, and the government should not be free to violate rights based on arbitrary determinations. Yet, here we are allowing President Trump to have that same authority. Will he use it for good, or can this lead to something negative down the road? Abuses of power are always justified based on national security arguments, but they seldom stop at benevolent gestures.

Although Congress has not declared war against Venezuela (at least yet), and that country has not actually invaded the United States, the argument can be made that the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang has “infiltrated” many cities in the United States and is wreaking havoc across the nation through violent actions. I reported on this last year, and specifically in Aurora, Colorado, TdA violence and break-ins at apartments were widespread across the city. However, the question of whether crimes committed by gangs originating from foreign countries and crossing the border qualifies under the requirements to invoke the Alien Enemies Act remains unclear, and it seems doubtful that that is the case. The wording of “invasion” (or “predatory incursion”) is almost certainly referring to a physical attack where troops from a foreign nation are pouring over the border with the purpose of conquest or destabilization (not non-state actors committing crimes). There is little evidence that TdA is being sanctioned by the Nicolas Maduro regime in Venezuela (though, it is possible, but even if that is the case, the George W. Bush, first Donald Trump, and Joe Biden administrations provoked Venezuela by attempting to covertly overthrow the government). Because of this, it appears as if the Alien Enemies Act does not apply here, though the definition of invasion can change over time with the large-scale organization of international terror and criminal groups that can mimic and even rival nation states. Additionally, this may be an intimidation factor, and President Trump may be hoping that Venezuelan criminals will “deport” themselves if they believe that the United States government is hunting them down (just as many non-citizens fled on their own or decided not to immigrate for fear of being investigated during the time that the Alien Friends Act was in effect, though nobody was physically deported under that law).

Regardless, allowing the president to have the power to unilaterally deport people is probably not a good idea, given the history of its use. Will President Trump stop at Venezuelan or MS-13 gang or Mexican cartel members? Will he create concentration camps in the United States for people from Latin American countries, citizens and non-citizens alike (as FDR did)? If President Trump simply uses the law to deport illegal immigrants now, who is to say that the next president does not expand this precedent and lock up American citizens who protest or speak out against the government (like President Adams did under the Sedition Acts)? The Biden administration already censored Americans’ posts online, and the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations began the vast network of surveillance of Americans. To think that we are simply going to grant extraconstitutional powers to a benevolent ruler (Trump) to clean up the immigration mess and that the government will relinquish those powers once the emergency has ended is a naïve interpretation of reality and history. Once the people consent to these powers, it becomes very difficult to demand that they be stripped away from future rulers. Therefore, it would be prudent to reject the idea that the president should be able to declare an emergency and grant himself superpowers to deal with such a crisis, regardless of how much of a problem the Venezuelan gangs pose. Let Congress declare this as an invasion, after public debate, and then, the federal government can mobilize resources to deal with these criminals. Plus, part of the fundamental aspect of American law is that people are given a fair trial (the Constitution is pretty clear about that), so to deprive suspects of due process by invoking the Alien Enemies Act is a way to prevent anyone from challenging the arbitrary decisions made by the executive branch.

In an effort to review Trump’s executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act, Obama-appointed United States District Judge James E. Boasberg put a two-week halt on deportations under this order until the constitutionality of it could be determined, and this included grounding flights that had already left the United States (how does an American judge ground flights that are already in the process of entering the airspace of another country and out of the United States’ jurisdiction?). Over the weekend, it is estimated that 261 immigrants were flown out of the United States in three flights, and many of them were transferred to the mega-prison CECOT in El Salvador under a new agreement with President Nayib Bukele to house illegal immigrants in exchange for $6 million in American taxpayer money (El Salvador is not as nice to their prisoners as the United States is, so this also serves as a deterrent). Under President Trump’s policies, some immigrants may also end up in the Bush administration’s torture-prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (which was never shut down under President Obama’s promise to do so).

After Judge Boasberg’s decision, flights that were already in the air and out of American airspace or in the process of leaving the runway still landed in El Salvador with prisoners, but it is unclear whether this was in violation of the judicial order or whether the flights were too far along to stop (of course, if you hate Trump, you will argue the former, and if you like him, you will take the latter position). An investigation will be launched into what happened on Saturday and which flights took off or landed before or after the judge’s order, and the Trump haters in the crowd will demand action be taken against Trump, and those who ally with Trump will call for the impeachment of Boasberg (typical politicking). Regardless, it is a bit unreasonable to expect the president to abide by a judicial order that is being released at the exact same time that flights were being sent out, and the deeper question is: why is the judge and those cheering him on excited about returning violent criminals who came into the country illegally?

This new deportation policy will likely be dragged out in the court system for some time, and whether President Trump ultimately gets what he wants or defies the courts and deports immigrants illegally under the Alien Enemies Act remains to be seen. Either way, we should be weary of the precedents set here by the administration.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.