In a dramatic turn of events, former U.S. President Donald Trump has distanced himself from a controversial deportation order that sent hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. Despite official records showing his signature on the proclamation, Trump insisted on Friday that he had nothing to do with it.
“I don’t know when it was signed because I didn’t sign it. Other people handled it,” he told reporters, shifting responsibility to his Secretary of State and Senator Marco Rubio. “Marco has done a great job, and he wanted them out. We go along with that.”
Trump’s comments come just hours after a federal judge blasted the decision as “incredibly troublesome.” The case revolves around the administration’s use of the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act (AEA)—a 200-year-old wartime law—to justify the deportation of 238 men accused of being part of the Tren de Aragua, a notorious Venezuelan gang.
Legal Backlash & A Presidential Clash
Federal Judge James Boasberg, who issued an emergency order to halt the deportations last weekend, raised serious concerns about the legality of using the AEA in this manner.
“The only previous uses of this law were during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II—times when the enemy was clearly defined,” Boasberg noted. “This situation is entirely different.”
The Justice Department, however, claims that two deportation flights carrying the Venezuelans were already in international airspace when the judge’s order was issued, making his ruling unenforceable.
Angered by the legal pushback, Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment, labeling him a “troublemaker and agitator.” This remark drew an unusual public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who defended judicial independence, stating: “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
Wrongfully Deported? Lawyers Say Many Were Innocent
Attorneys representing some of the deported Venezuelans argue that their clients were not gang members and had committed no crimes. Instead, they claim the men were targeted solely because of their tattoos—an accusation that raises serious human rights concerns.
Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), emphasized that even during World War II, individuals received hearings before deportation.
“This was a summary removal with no due process,” Gelernt said. “Anyone could be taken off the street under this policy.”
A Political Firestorm & Internal Shake-Up
As the controversy deepens, the fallout within the U.S. government is becoming evident. Reports indicate that nearly the entire civil rights branch of the Department of Homeland Security was fired on Friday, raising further questions about the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to defend the deportations, insisting that those removed were “bad people.”
“I was told they went through a very strong vetting process,” he said. “This was a bad group—killers, murderers—the worst records you’ve ever seen.”
However, with mounting legal challenges and public scrutiny, this high-stakes immigration battle is far from over. The coming weeks are expected to bring more legal drama, political clashes, and possibly, a deeper investigation into who really ordered the controversial deportations.
