Yesterday, I wrote an article arguing that the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) was the wrong legal tool to deport members of Tren de Aragua (TdA)—a position that my fellow conservative over at The Conservative TAKE strongly disagrees with. You can read his counterargument here. While he raises some valid points, his overall argument is fundamentally flawed.

At the core of this debate is a simple question: Did the Venezuelan government actively facilitate Tren de Aragua’s entry into the United States? If so, I would fully support Trump’s use of the AEA. But as it stands, there is no concrete evidence proving that Venezuela deliberately directed or deployed this gang into the U.S. Yes, TdA originated in Venezuela’s prison system and has expanded internationally, but that alone does not equate to state sponsorship or an act of war. There is a clear legal distinction between a government’s failure to suppress crime and its active participation in a hostile incursion. Without definitive proof of the latter, the AEA simply does not apply to this situation.

Now, I’ll admit that my original use of the term “outdated” for the AEA was a poor choice of words. The law itself is still valid and relevant, but in this case, it was misapplied.

Judicial Overreach? Not This Time.

One of the main points in my colleague’s article is that judicial overreach is the bigger issue—that liberal judges are undermining presidential authority. And normally, I’d agree. Activist judges do routinely obstruct immigration enforcement with endless legal technicalities. However, in this case, that’s not what happened.

The judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, and that’s exactly what Judge James E. Boasberg did. He ruled that the AEA does not apply to TdA because the gang is not a state-directed force engaged in an invasion or predatory incursion, as required by the statute. That’s not judicial activism—that’s correctly applying the law. If the Trump administration has concrete evidence that Venezuela directed TdA as a weapon against the U.S., they can present that evidence in court. Otherwise, the judge was right to rule that the AEA doesn’t apply here.

Had Trump simply used existing immigration laws, this issue could have been avoided entirely.

Trump Had a Stronger Legal Option

Yes, immigration courts are overwhelmed, and yes, the system is riddled with loopholes that bad actors exploit. That’s a real issue. But misusing war powers isn’t the solution.

Trump could have bypassed the immigration court backlog by using laws that already expedite the removal of criminal non-citizens—specifically, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This law allows for rapid deportation without prolonged litigation and doesn’t require a legally questionable wartime justification that invites judicial challenges.

Trump Stretched the Law, He Didn’t Follow It

The AEA does not apply to TdA unless one makes a massive leap in legal interpretation—or relies on unproven assumptions that the Venezuelan government orchestrated their entry into the U.S. The court did not override the President’s constitutional authority to defend the country. It simply interpreted the law and found that Trump’s invocation of the AEA did not comply with it.

The irony here is that Trump had the legal authority to deport these criminals—but instead of using the right laws, he stretched a war statute beyond its intended purpose, making enforcement harder, not easier.

Legal Precedents & Misinterpretations

The article supporting Trump’s position cites several legal precedents, but none of them actually support using the AEA in this case. Let’s take a closer look:

1. Alien Enemies Act of 1798

We’ve already discussed this at length. Yes, the law is still valid, but it doesn’t apply here.

2. Haig v. Agee (1981)

This case involved revoking a U.S. citizen’s passport on national security grounds. It has nothing to do with the AEA or the deportation of foreign nationals.

3. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

This landmark case limited presidential power, ruling that President Truman’s seizure of steel mills during the Korean War was unconstitutional because he lacked congressional authorization. Rather than supporting Trump’s case, this decision actually warns against executive overreach, making it a cautionary precedent, not a supporting one.

4. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950)

This case upheld the executive’s broad authority over immigration—but it had nothing to do with the AEA. It dealt with a non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen being denied entry on national security grounds, which is a very different issue than deporting gang members under war powers.

5. Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

This ruling upheld the President’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), not the AEA. If anything, it reinforces my argument that Trump should have used the INA instead.

6. Congress’s Power Over the Judiciary

Yes, Congress has the power to limit judicial review in certain cases. But that doesn’t change the fact that the AEA wasn’t the right tool to use here. The solution isn’t to strong-arm the courts into allowing a legally questionable action—it’s to use the right laws in the first place.

Final Verdict: Wrong Tool for the Job

Without clear proof that TdA is acting under the direction of a hostile nation, the AEA is the wrong tool for this situation. Invoking war powers for an immigration issue is like using the kitchen sink instead of the toilet—it technically gets the job done, but it’s not the most practical or efficient approach.

Trump had the legal power to deport these criminals—he just used the wrong legal mechanism to do it. That’s the issue.