The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and Why it Matters Today.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 stands as one of the earliest and most enduring pieces of U.S. legislation, granting the President authority to detain or deport non-citizens from hostile nations during times of war or invasion. Enacted amidst heightened tensions with France, this act has resurfaced in modern discourse due to its invocation by the Trump administration in 2025.
The Alien Enemies Act was part of the broader Alien and Sedition Acts, a series of four laws passed in 1798 aimed at strengthening national security. Specifically, the Alien Enemies Act empowers the President to apprehend and remove foreign nationals from enemy countries during declared wars or invasions, based solely on their nationality, without the need for individualized evidence of wrongdoing. Notably, this act has been invoked sparingly throughout American history. Its most prominent application occurred during World War II, when it served as the legal foundation for the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian nationals residing in the United States.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act in response to concerns about the Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Venezuelan criminal organization accused of infiltrating the United States and engaging in activities deemed hostile to national security. The administration’s proclamation targeted Venezuelan nationals aged 14 and older, who were identified as members of TdA but lacked lawful permanent resident status or U.S. citizenship. This move aimed to expedite the deportation of these individuals, bypassing traditional immigration proceedings. The administration justified this approach by labeling TdA’s actions as an invasion, thereby activating the President’s wartime powers under the Alien Enemies Act.
The administration’s actions faced immediate legal scrutiny. Civil rights organizations filed lawsuits challenging the broad application of the Alien Enemies Act, arguing that it violated due process rights and lacked sufficient evidence linking the targeted individuals to hostile activities. In response, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order, halting the deportations and demanding detailed information about the flights and the individuals aboard. The Justice Department resisted these demands, citing national security concerns and asserting that the court’s inquiries encroached upon executive authority. This standoff highlighted the tension between the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights and the executive branch’s mandate to protect national security.
As legal battles continue to unfold, the judiciary’s interpretations of such actions will significantly influence the balance between safeguarding national interests and protecting individual rights. This episode serves as a poignant reminder of the ongoing debate over the appropriate use of executive authority in matters affecting both security and freedom.