Deborah S. Gonzalez (#5: The Rule of Law)

(Roger Williams University School of Law)

My task today is to reflect on the consequences of the Trump administration’s immigration policies and legal positions for individuals, American politics, and the legal system and culture overall.

In five minutes, it’s impossible to cover everything, so I will focus on my own perspective regarding this administration’s use of the law and the political system.

As Ute mentioned, our Constitution has checks and balances to prevent authoritarian government. This administration has moved away from that in various ways. What concerns me about the future of American politics, culture, and the legal system is the administration’s decisions that are not based on the rule of law, or interpretations of the law that are far-fetched and disconnected from reality.

I want to highlight the discrepancy between the conventional interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) and the administration’s reading of it. For the AEA to be invoked, either Congress must declare war or the President must proclaim an invasion. The Act has been enacted three times: The War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. It has only been used as an “invasion” during World War II after the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan.

President Roosevelt declared an invasion after Pearl Harbor. The term “invasion,” as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, is the encroachment upon another’s rights or an army’s incursion for conquest or plunder. The AEA’s use of “invasion” clearly refers to such events. However, President Trump’s March 2025 proclamation declared that the Tren de Aragua gang from Venezuela had invaded the United States.

Legally, to be considered an invasion, the intrusion must be collective and orchestrated by a foreign government. The administration claims the Tren de Aragua gang, directed by President Nicolás Maduro and the Cartel de los Soles, was sent to the U.S. to commit crimes. Trump’s proclamation, as the AEA requires, stated that anyone over 14 from that nationality should be apprehended or removed under U.S. immigration laws.

For those unfamiliar, in March, the President ordered the deportation of 137 Venezuelans, assumed to be members of the gang Tren de Aragua, to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process.

Assuming, for the purpose of this discussion, that an invasion occurred, the procedures by which these foreign nationals were deported from the United States appeared inconsistent with constitutional protections. Firstly, individuals designated as members of a certain gang were not given prior notification that they were being deported. Additionally, they were denied the opportunity to contest their classification as gang members. Furthermore, they were not provided a forum to present arguments against deportation to a third country, nor to address the risk of potential persecution by either gang affiliates or governmental authorities in El Salvador.

The 137 Venezuelans were apprehended based on the federal government’s belief that tattoos identified them as members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

We must consider if the actions of the members of the gang Tren de Aragua truly constitute an invasion as defined by law. It seems far-fetched to equate gang members’ actions with an invasion.

---

---