The White House denies violating a judge’s order to halt the deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, a situation that, if proven otherwise, could push legal battles over presidential authority closer to a constitutional crisis.

The controversy stems from the administration’s use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to expel Venezuelan migrants—a rare and contentious move that some view as executive overreach.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg temporarily blocked the deportations to assess the implications of invoking the act. He also stated in court that any flights already in the air should return to the U.S. However, the administration announced on Sunday that 250 deportees, allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, were already in El Salvadorian custody.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s carefully worded response on Sunday further fueled speculation about whether the administration defied the judge’s directive.

“The Administration did not ‘refuse to comply’ with a court order. The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist (Tren de Aragua) aliens had already been removed from U.S. territory,” Leavitt stated.

She also argued that “a single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.”

Notably, Leavitt’s reference to the judge’s “written” order, along with the lack of clarity on when the migrants arrived in El Salvador, raises questions. Additionally, her use of the phrase “aircraft carrier” adds to the confusion, as the White House does not have the authority to determine the legality of court orders.

During his return to Washington from Florida on Sunday, former President Trump defended his administration’s actions but sidestepped a direct answer on whether the judge’s order had been followed.

“These were bad people. That was a bad group of, as I say, hombres,” Trump said. When pressed on whether his administration had violated court orders, he responded, “You’d have to speak to the lawyers about that.”

The timeline of Boasberg’s orders and their alignment with the deportation operation remains unclear. If the administration disregarded the directive, it could mark one of its most serious legal challenges to date and heighten concerns about presidential defiance of the rule of law.

Attorneys from the ACLU and Democracy Forward filed an overnight request asking Boasberg to seek sworn declarations clarifying whether officials complied with his orders. They are seeking details on whether flights departed after the judge’s instructions, whether planes subject to the order were in the air, and whether deported individuals were handed over to a foreign government after the temporary halt was issued.

Separately, a Boston judge is set to hear a case on Monday regarding allegations that Customs and Border Protection officials ignored an order blocking the deportation of Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University professor and U.S. visa holder. Reuters reported that she was deported to Lebanon after returning from a family visit abroad.

Trump is acting now and not waiting for the consequences

The unfolding events reflect a broader pattern.

Trump is exercising vast executive power, often acting first and leaving courts and political opponents to challenge him only after his decisions have already triggered nearly irreversible consequences.

His use of the Alien Enemies Act to accelerate deportations is particularly striking, as the law is traditionally reserved for wartime.

At the same time, a crackdown on student protests—exemplified by the arrest of a Palestinian green card holder—is being defended on the basis that his anti-Israel stance undermines U.S. foreign policy. Critics, however, see it as an effort to suppress First Amendment rights and dissent within academia, led by a White House unconstrained by constitutional limits.

Adding to the controversy, Trump abruptly shut down the taxpayer-funded international broadcaster Voice of America over the weekend, reigniting debates over whether he can unilaterally disregard spending mandated by Congress. This move followed his chilling statement on Friday that media outlets not aligned with his MAGA agenda are “corrupt and illegal.”

Many of Trump’s supporters elected him to dismantle institutions they see as disconnected from their values, culture, and economic interests. Polls suggest that among his base, these aggressive actions remain widely popular.

His strategy is to act swiftly, capitalizing on the fact that checks on presidential power are often applied only in hindsight. By the time legal challenges emerge, the damage is done—just as an agency dismantled by Elon Musk’s hypothetical “Department of Government Efficiency” could remain in ruins even if a judge later orders its restoration.

Deportations to El Salvador spark legal dispute

The 1798 Alien Enemies Act has a history of misuse that has left lasting scars on American history. It damaged the legacy of the nation’s second president, John Adams, and later served as justification for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

The law states it can be enforced when the U.S. is at war with a foreign nation or if an invasion or attack is attempted, threatened, or carried out against U.S. territory—provided the president makes a formal proclamation.

However, the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela. While Trump has repeatedly claimed the country is experiencing an “invasion” of undocumented migrants, criminals, and gang members, the power to declare war rests with Congress, not the president. This raises immediate concerns about whether Trump exceeded his legal authority in ordering the deportations.

Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order to allow time for these legal questions to be fully examined.

On CNN’s State of the Union Sunday, South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds said he was unsure whether the administration had disregarded the judge’s order but emphasized, “We expect the executive branch to follow the law… we are a constitutional republic, and we will follow those laws.”

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on X that over 250 alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang had been deported to El Salvador, where they would be held “in their very good jails at a fair price.” The U.S. is paying $6 million for their detention.

Now, the timeline of court rulings and deportations is under scrutiny.

Boasberg initially blocked the removal of five individuals who had challenged the order in court. After a subsequent hearing, he expanded the ruling to cover all noncitizens in U.S. custody affected by Trump’s proclamation. Attorney General Pam Bondi and other Justice Department officials argued in a Sunday filing that “some gang members” were deported between Boasberg’s two rulings, but the five original plaintiffs were not among them. The administration has already appealed the judge’s decisions.

Beyond Boasberg’s order, the case has wider implications.

International law generally forbids deporting individuals to countries where they may face persecution. Given the harsh and overcrowded prison conditions in El Salvador, this situation could meet that threshold. Additionally, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele—often praised by Trump officials—faces allegations of constitutional and human rights violations that clash with longstanding American foreign policy values.

Critics are also questioning why Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act when other legal avenues exist to expel gang members. The administration’s lack of transparency regarding the identities of those deported raises concerns that undocumented migrants with no gang affiliations could have been wrongfully swept up in the process, denied their legal rights, and sent into dangerous conditions.

“Giving them this wide latitude to just… claim that anybody is anything is wrong,” Texas Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett told CNN. “We do have courts, we do have processes, we do have laws, and we should just go ahead and use those.”

Yet, politically, Trump’s aggressive approach benefits him by reinforcing his strongman image. It allows him to frame critics of his policies as defenders of criminals, despite broader concerns about legality and human rights.

“Thank you to El Salvador and, in particular, President Bukele, for your understanding of this horrible situation, which was allowed to happen to the United States because of incompetent Democrat leadership,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday.

Free speech concerns raised by detention of green card holder

The administration is also under scrutiny for its handling of the detention of former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian refugee whose green card was revoked due to his involvement in last year’s protests over the Israel-Hamas war.

Key legal questions remain: Was Khalil arrested for actions that legally qualify as material support for terrorism, or is he being detained in violation of his First Amendment rights as a U.S. legal permanent resident? His supporters argue he was singled out for speaking against Israel’s military actions in Gaza following the October 7, 2023, attacks.

On CBS’ Face the Nation Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed it was “very simple” to see that Khalil had misrepresented his intentions when applying for a green card, as his political activities later included participation in pro-Hamas events. “We never should have allowed him in, in the first place,” Rubio said. “If he had told us, ‘I’m going over there and I’m going over there to become the spokesperson and one of the leaders of a movement that’s going to turn one of your allegedly elite colleges upside down’—we never would have let him in.” He further argued that Khalil’s actions ran “counter to the foreign policy interest of the United States.”

U.S. law states that anyone who “endorses or espouses terrorist activities or persuades others to do so” is ineligible for a visa. However, a key question in Khalil’s case is whether those restrictions apply to a legal permanent resident already in the country.

Rubio did not provide evidence that Khalil committed a crime, materially supported terrorism, or explicitly advocated for terrorist activities. If his actions were limited to voicing support for Hamas—however controversial or offensive to many Americans—he could be protected under the First Amendment, which prohibits government restrictions on free speech.

The case has raised alarm because it suggests that any non-citizen immigrant could be arrested and deported if their speech is deemed contrary to U.S. foreign policy by the president or his administration.

Khalil’s legal battle is ongoing. A federal judge has blocked his deportation, and he remains in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Like the case of the Venezuelan deportations, this issue appears likely to reach the Supreme Court, where justices will face an unprecedented series of cases shaping both Trump’s presidency and the broader scope of executive power.

At the core of all these legal disputes is a fundamental question: Does Trump possess the sweeping authority he has claimed, marking the most aggressive assertion of presidential power in modern history?

Trump, however, is not waiting for the courts to decide. He continues to push forward with major changes to U.S. governance, values, and culture—shifts that could prove difficult for future presidents or Congress to undo.