Following the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed an ‘invasion’ and invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
This decision enabled the Roosevelt administration to detain over 31,000 non-U.S. citizens of Japanese, German, and Italian descent in internment camps throughout World War II.
The majority of those detained were labeled as ‘dangerous’ enemy aliens based solely on their citizenship or place of birth, often without any semblance of due process.
Fast forward to today, and we see unsettling parallels in the treatment of immigrants.
Under the same Alien Enemies Act, a group of 137 Venezuelan immigrants has been deported and is currently held in a Salvadoran prison notorious for human rights abuses.
While the Trump administration claims these individuals are linked to Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, they have not been afforded a hearing to contest this assertion.
Court filings reveal that many of those removed under this act “have no criminal record in the United States,” and some appear to have been targeted for having common tattoos, such as roses or crowns.
The treatment of these Venezuelan immigrants evokes a historical stain on the nation’s honor—similar to the internment policy during World War II.
As documented in a 2024 report produced for the Brennan Center for Justice, the Alien Enemies Act has become a symbol of governmental overreach and racial prejudice.
Unlike Roosevelt, who invoked the law after a direct military attack, Trump is employing this wartime power in a peacetime context.
The courts have responded strongly to these actions, with the Supreme Court recently intervening to block further deportations while it reviews the legality of Trump’s claims under the Alien Enemies Act.
This law, which arose from the tensions of the late 1790s, gives the president sweeping authority to detain or deport noncitizens from enemy nations during times of war or invasion.
Currently, this act remains the only surviving component of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts, having never been repealed or set with an expiration date.
Under the Alien Enemies Act, the government can target immigrants solely based on where they were born, lacking any requirement for due process or hearings to establish their loyalty, even for those who have lived lawfully in the country for years.
The rationale for this law in the late 18th century stemmed from the limited capacities of a nascent United States government aimed at preventing foreign espionage and sabotage amid fears of conflict with France.
Today’s America, however, is drastically different.
A vast array of legal tools, informed by extensive advancements in federal capabilities and civil rights protections, has emerged to address national security issues.
Congress has enacted numerous statutes that regulate immigration, asylum, and deportation processes, providing immigrants with fundamental rights.
Unlike during Roosevelt’s era, the contemporary constitutional fabric guarantees robust protection against discrimination and ensures due process.
The internment of individuals based on their nationality during World War II has been widely condemned, with reparations extended to Japanese-Americans and public acknowledgment of the injustices suffered by immigrants of Italian and German descent.
Legislators across the political spectrum have raised concerns regarding the ongoing applicability of the Alien Enemies Act.
Until Trump’s recent proclamation on March 15, the U.S. had seemingly learned from past mistakes regarding civil liberties during wartime.
By invoking this controversial law, Trump not only revives a problematic legal framework but also extends its application beyond its intended scope.
He has declared a so-called ‘invasion’ and a ‘predatory incursion’ linked to Tren de Aragua, aiming to justify its invocation under circumstances that traditionally require significant military action rather than mere migration or organized crime.
Historically, such terminology is fitted to literal acts of war.
Prior instances of activating the Alien Enemies Act connected with actual armed conflict include the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
For Trump to claim that Tren de Aragua constitutes a ‘foreign nation or government’ under the Alien Enemies Act because of alleged affiliations with the Venezuelan Maduro regime further complicates his stance.
Critics note that this assertion contradicts intelligence findings from Trump’s own government, which have consistently stated that Tren de Aragua does not cooperate with or receive support from the Venezuelan government.
The absurdity of the rationale equating criminal activities with acts of war stands in stark contrast to the historical record of direct military assaults like the attack on Pearl Harbor, which resulted in substantial loss of life and extensive military engagement.
The Trump administration’s approach overlooks the existing governmental authority to deal with members of violent criminal organizations through established immigration laws, which already include provisions for deportations based on documented criminal activity.
Traditionally, individuals facing deportation based on membership in gangs are entitled to hearings before immigration courts, with opportunities to challenge the evidence presented against them.
In contrast, the broader implications of the Alien Enemies Act deny these individuals crucial legal rights.
Judicial responses to this situation suggest a notable shift from the complacency experienced during World War II.
While the courts then largely acquiesced to executive decisions, recent legal challenges, such as the class-action lawsuit against the Trump administration’s actions, reflect a more assertive judicial stance.
Judge James Boasberg swiftly issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting deportations based on the flawed application of the Alien Enemies Act.
A three-judge panel upheld this order, with a majority of judges condemning the lack of due process and questioning the appropriateness of the law’s application.
Despite the Supreme Court reversing this ruling on procedural grounds—asserting lawsuits concerning Alien Enemies Act deportations must be filed in specific judicial districts rather than a nationwide suit—it highlighted the recipients’ entitlement to due process.
Further legal action has continued in multiple jurisdictions, with judges calling for constraints on deportations under the act.
When threats of imminent deportation emerged in Texas, the Supreme Court intervened, mandating an immediate halt until further scrutiny could take place.
As the courts deliberated over the core legal question regarding the legitimacy of the Alien Enemies Act in this context, uncertainty looms regarding Trump’s ongoing application of the law.
Moreover, reports have surfaced indicating potential administrative attempts to circumvent judicial orders, raising alarms among judges regarding possible contempt of court.
Nevertheless, the initial courts’ responses seem to foreshadow a pushback against potential abuses of power, suggesting an environment where the Alien Enemies Act could face significant scrutiny moving forward.
The ultimate fate of these deportation efforts remains to be seen, but the higher courts’ willing to engage with the issues signifies a vital aspect of safeguarding the civil liberties that have become cornerstones of modern American democracy.
image source from：https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/alien-enemies-act-trump/682565/
