Trump's Use of the Alien Enemies Act Violates Madison's View of Presidential Power
Alleged criminal aliens may face legal punishment. But only after receiving due process of law.

President Donald Trump claims that the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 grants him the power to deport certain Venezuelan-born aliens without due process based on the mere allegation of membership in a criminal street gang.
But the text of the Alien Enemies Act does not allow the president to do anything of the sort. "Whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government," the act states, the president may direct the "removal" of "all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized."
The alleged crimes of the alleged members of the street gang Tren de Aragua do not meet this legal standard. There is no "declared war" between the United States and Venezuela, and there is no "invasion or predatory incursion" of the U.S. by "any foreign nation or government." The gang is not a foreign state, and the gang's alleged crimes, as heinous as they may be, do not qualify as acts of war by a foreign state. Trump's frequent talk about a rhetorical "invasion" of the U.S. by undocumented immigrants utterly fails to satisfy the law's requirements.
The fatal defects of Trump's position are further illuminated when you compare Trump's stance with James Madison's 1800 "Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts." (The Alien Enemies Act was one of the three laws that comprised the Alien and Sedition Acts.)
As Madison explained, there are two categories of "offences for which aliens within the jurisdiction" of the United States "are punishable." The first category involves "offences committed by the nation of which they make a part, and in whose offences they are involved." In this case, "the offending nation can no otherwise be punished than by war." In other words, the offending nation in this case has committed an act of war against the United States. The aliens who fall within this category are "alien enemies."
The second category involves offenses committed by aliens "themselves alone, without any charge against the nation to which they belong." In this case, "the offence being committed by the individual, not by his nation, and against the municipal law, not against the law of nations; the individual only, and not the nation is punishable; and the punishment must be conducted according to the municipal law, not according to the law of nations." The aliens who fall within this second category are "alien friends."
Notice that "alien friends" may certainly be punished by the normal U.S. legal system for whatever crimes they commit while on U.S. soil. They may be deprived of their life, their liberty, and their property. But—and this is a big but—they may only be deprived of life, liberty, or property after they have received due process of law, which is what the Constitution guarantees to all persons, not just to all citizens.
Madison's definition of "alien friends" plainly applies to any noncitizen who is alleged to be a member of Tren de Aragua. That person's alleged criminal activity was "committed by the individual, not by his nation, and against the municipal law, not against the law of nations." Any such alleged gang member is therefore entitled to receive due process of law before he is punished, including when the proper punishment for him is deportation.
It should perhaps go without saying, but I will say it anyway for the sake of clarity: In any contest between Madison's view of presidential power and Trump's view of presidential power, the Madisonian view undoubtedly deserves to prevail.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If the writer of the Constitution was alive today he would no doubt oppose Trump's agenda, and be denounced as a leftist with TDS.
I'm sure Madison would be all for transitioning boys into girls and girls into boys
Because he wore a wig?
Fuck you and your selective outrage. Where were you the last 4 years?
Somewhere not abusing the Alien Enemies Act ?
Yeah, your kind was just abusing American citizens.
You really hate America.
You can't violate a view. A view is not a law.
Of course not, but it an orientalist argument which is quite popular nowadays.
Are we talking about Trump or FDR?
FDR was dead decades before I was born, and I’m old. I think the time for litigating his actions is long past.
Unless you are trying an irrelevant whatabout, in which case it’s pathetic.
And hear you are commenting on an article about Madison.
Did FDR donate to Act Blue? Probably conservative if so.
You really want that to be something I said. Keep trying, maybe the next time will do the trick!
FDR had an anti orientalist argument.
orientalist
The only people wanting to copy China are on the D side.
The administration admitted that they deported someone to the brutal El Salvadorian prison who had protected status due to an "administrative error". And they argued to the court that there is nothing that can be done about it.
You have no humanity if this does not shock you.
Trump defenders consider humanity to be a fallacious appeal to emotion.
If they know where they sent him/her, and they are paying for him/her to be there? Why can't they get him/her back ? What is the excuse ?
The administration does not want to bring him back and are saying the court has no jurisdiction because he is not in US custody.
Did MSNBC tell you to say that?
It's a real shame it happened.
Should have had some assistance from the Left to remove illegal criminals. But they had not.
Errors occur. It is a real shame.
My 85 year old aunt, a lifelong Midwestern Republican, says that today’s Republicans are “mean spirited”.
I give you Exhibit A: DaMikeSC.
My 85 year old aunt, a lifelong Midwestern Republican, says that today’s Republicans are “mean spirited”.
They see cruelty as a virtue.
Now do Democrat mandated experimental vaccines, no visitors for the terminally ill, cancelled funerals, imprisoned elderly in homes, church goers arrested, sand dumped on playgrounds, and on and on.
Who views cruelty as a virtue, mother fucker?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Democrats did it first so that makes it ok. Thanks for pointing that out.
You deserve your upcoming liver failure.
We’ve got to get rid of everyone like him. America can’t survive much more of their kind.
Pointing out that you’re wrong about who views cruelty as a virtue by a wide margin isn’t necessarily saying it’s ok.
Oh bull. He's saying that it's ok for his team to be cruel because the other team did it first. Not only that, but he's saying that I must be part of the other team because that's the only explanation for criticizing his team. According to him that makes me a hypocrite and validates what his team does.
Too many fallacies to bother to count.
It was cruel when you democrats brought them all here in the first place. This is all your fault.
Libertarians don't join teams. They're vehemently independent.
No. Democrats do it ALWAYS.
They let illegals into the country in droves, with 'protected status' thrown out like beads at Mardi Gras --indiscriminately.
Fixing that is going to hurt, there's no way around that-- because the left was using people as things, as pawns to create an image they wanted to project.
The right is fixing what the left does all the damned time.
And it's gonna be painful.
Meanwhile I'm sure you midwest aunt is cheering torching the Albuquerque gop office, hitting tesla owners woth cars, firebombing teslas, etc.
Why are you sure of that? Oh, right. Because you’re a mean spirited paleocon whiny-boy who projects his own level of extremism upon everyone else.
Errors occur. It is a real shame.
This is one of the points of due process. Governments are fallible. People hold a right to defend themselves against government fallibility.
As a guest, you are here at the pleasure of the host.
I know right Leo. Even with due process, courts have never been wrong. Infallible system.
Meanwhile immigrants have zero right to maintain a visa.
He was not an illegal criminal.
The point of due process is to prevent things like that from happening, and the point of not allowing due process is to make sure things like that happen. It's cruelty for cruelty's sake. And, as Idoho-Bob pointed out, it's ok because Democrats were cruel first.
Sarc defends the democrats' intentional cruelty to Americans, while calling a clerical error to a foreigner "cruel". If it wasn't for double-standards you'd have no standards at all.
I didn't defend anything you lying sack of spoiled potatoes. You're the one defending cruelty here by saying "It's ok because you're a hypocrite hurr durr. Democrats did it first hurr durr."
As I've said many times, tu quoque is a mating call in these comments.
What you've said MANY times, is it is ok for democrats to do X, while demonizing the GOP for the same behavior. University of Maine, Gaslighting 101.
Cool story bro. Got a cite?
Democrats never had any humanity to begin with. And you’re not real Americans either.
Does damon not know how to read?
or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted,
The government has told the court they have evidence of the maduro government working to export TdA to the US including training.
they may only be deprived of life, liberty, or property after they have received due process of law, which is what the Constitution guarantees to all persons, not just to all citizens.
This remains incorrect even at a fundamental basis.
DHS has and can revoked or deny entry without a criminal trial.
This occurs hundreds of times a year at the border with smugglers.
Often those with even valid visas when caught smuggling have their visa revoked and they are removed from the country. All without a trial.
Why is so much of Reason lately built on ignorance?
Residency or allowance to be in the US is not a fucking property owned by immigrants.
It really should be adjudicated by Tufts University.
Fair.
The US can turn people away at the boarder. But once someone is in the country they are afforded the same due process rights as everyone else, and that includes the government revoking the visa.
Once you start denying due process to some people, you are denying it to everyone.
And this is how we know Molly is fucking retarded. The smugglers are in the US during the inspection dumdum.
I also notice you've completely ignored the 2024 case during Biden regarding this issue.
Weird.
The US considers anything up to 100 miles form a boarder to be close enough to the boarder for boarder-style searches and expulsions.
The US views every square inch of its territory as available for expulsions.
Thank you for the non sequitur.
They can also be directly removed sans a court if cought in this region.
Is this your admission your original post was completely wrong?
So?
"The US can turn people away at the boarder. But once someone is in the country they are afforded the same due process rights as everyone else, and that includes the government revoking the visa."
The fantasies of a TDS-addled slimy pile of lefty shit are not to be respected.
No, they’re not, you keep peddling that lie, even though it’s been discredited dozens of times here over the last few weeks.
They’re democrats, they believe in strength through ignorance. After all, Comrade Jesse, our only real freedoms is through the Great Chain of Socialism that binds us all.
“ The government has told the court they have evidence of the maduro government working to export TdA to the US including training.”
The government says a lot of untrue things, now more than ever before. Used to be skepticism of government claims was a virtue on the right.
Notice they didn’t actually present any of said evidence. A reasonable person would ask why.
(D)ifferent.
They don't have to. A 2024 unanimous Court ruling states they do not. It is at the discretion of the executive for revocation of Visas. Keep up buddy. That case even said there was no statutory requirement for judicial review and called judicial review not allowed.
All the democrats here, like Sarc and Tony Godiva, will continue to peddle their lies about this. It’s part of their ongoing tantrum because they lost so badly.
Still going with this lie? I mean you stretched this interpretation beyond all reason, but look who I'm talking to.
https://reason.com/2025/04/01/cheap-stuff-is-a-huge-part-of-the-american-dream/?comments=true#comment-10984646
Oh, look. My previously-stated assumption that you were intentionally misstating the SCOTUS ruling was spot-on. Shocking.
Yes that guts the entire argument because if true Trump is acting fully within the law. But as far as I know the district courts are not challenging that claim they are simply inventing due process that they pull out of their asses. And whatever Madison's opinion was just isn't relevant to the straightforward text of the law at this point. Supreme Court justices may consider it but the district court has no jurisdiction.
The legal barrier for deportation is much lower than the legal barrier for imprisonment.
Also note that the Supreme Court rejected a 1st Amendment challenge against deporting an alien gor membership in the Communist Party.
The Report of 1800, [7 January] 1800
MADISON contradicts you
" With respect to alien enemies, no doubt has been intimated as to the federal authority over them; the constitution having expressly delegated to Congress the power to declare war against any nation, and of course to treat it and all its members as enemies."
"But it can not be a true inference, that because the admission of an alien is a favor, the favor may be revoked at pleasure. "
Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Begun and Held at the Capitol, in the City of Richmond. Volumes in this series are designated by the month in which the session began.description ends, Dec. 1799 [Evans 38954], pp. 53–71).
Alien Enemies Act: Why James Madison DIDN’T Oppose it
Mar 19 2025
Length: 19 mins
https://www.audible.com/podcast/Alien-Enemies-Act-Why-James-Madison-DIDNT-Oppose-it/B0F1ZFKG3L
IF you were right you should still support Trump. You can't say that prior to some official ruling Trump should just not do what he thinks must be done. Your view, far as I can re-construct, is : Call everything into question so Tren de Aragua and MS-13 have time to find new digs and then when courts finally get to it say "See I was right" or "Guess I was wrong" all the time knowing it was only a stall for time.
IF you were sincere you would be pummellilng Roberts for sitting in godawful mute slumber over the Birthright Citizenship debate.
Reason and open border acolytes are going with the theory that the US must spend months on each individualized case for the 15M (low estimate) illegal immigrants here.
They do this despite a 2024 unanimous ruling by the USSC stating no judicial review for revoked visas and foreign migration being an executive function.
They demand this so that the problem is never fixed. From a cost/time perspective their demands are untenable.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the SCOTUS ruling doesn’t say what you think it says. And it’s a very thick limb, given who you are.
I'm going to go out on a limb that as usual you didn't even bother to evidence your claim. One of your favorite new justices was the author. She was pretty fucking explicit.
“ your claim”
It wasn’t a claim, fool. Saying I was going out on a limb means it is a guess. As it turns out, a completely accurate guess. But you being dishonest and wrong in easily-proved ways is par for the course with you. You’re like Dr. Ed with a slightly smaller desire for political violence and civil war.
Wishing real hard won’t make it true.
“ You can't say that prior to some official ruling Trump should just not do what he thinks must be done.”
That’s literally what the rule of law and separation of powers means. Trump isn’t a king, he’s the head of a co-equal branch of government.
Trump isn’t a king, he’s the head of a co-equal branch of government.
But... muh mandate!
Is this the "mandate" to allow any and all into the country, and thereby pass the sorting process on to the next administration?
The sorting process which will thereby result in some mistakes?
That "mandate"?
The sorting process which will thereby result in some mistakes?
So why not hear the cases and the defense of those cases. What's the rush to push these people onto planes without allowing them to defend themselves, then claiming "oops we made a mistake but he's out of our jurisdiction now?"
Trump had an end in mind (and thinks he has a mandate to accomplish that end, no matter what), and he's using any "legal" means he can find to get to that end, regardless of whether it clearly applies or not. Damon's article is arguing that it doesn't and shouldn't apply, but I'm not really hearing any arguments against that.
How long will this take with 15M+ people dumbass?
I'm glad you want taxpayers to front the costs and tens of billions of dollars for your feelings.
Feelings? Due process isn't a feeling.
I didn't realize there was a valid argument that it would be too costly or cumbersome to grant people their rights. Does that apply to all rights, or just those you don't personally like?
"Feelings? Due process isn't a feeling."
Yes, it is. Your narrative isn't holding water and now you have a sad.
Which other rights, Sevo, would you say are invalid because it's costly and cumbersome to prosecute the cases?
Could you imagine if they locked up all of the Jan 6th protesters and denied them due process, how upset your side would be? Oh that's right. They did. You correctly called them out in that case. What's different about this one?
You’re comparing criminal prosecution of US citizens with removal of illegals. This is a spurious analogy, and therefore irrelevant.
The administration is following the law.
The administration is following the law.
Well, I guess that's the question we need an answer to. The US district court and DC court of appeals say they aren't. This will be interesting to see what SCOTUS says. It seems pretty clear to me based on the arguments presented in this article.
Your appeal to authority while ignoring prior higher courts rulings is noted Leo. You choose your authority based on your feels. You can't even be bothered to read the actual regulations.
Scotus already said something in a 2024 case retard.
Still flogging that dead horse, are you? The ruling doesn’t say what you want it to. Repeating your lie doesn’t make it less of a lie.
Your argument is based on feelings, not law. And it is a bad argument, even based on feelings. Which in no way apply.
They are getting all of the process they are due, as confirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court decision, even if it was authored by that notorious MAGA die hard... Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
https://www.boundless.com/blog/supreme-court-rules-courts-cant-review-visa-revocations/
Yout feelings is being ignorant of what the actual law and regulations are because you feel it should be different dumdum.
So if you get your visa revoked, that means the government can send you to an El Salvadoran prison? You think that’s what the SCOTUS ruling says?
"So why not hear the cases and the defense of those cases."
15M people? We see you are not serious about the issue.
YOUR guy mandated the flood; Trump is trying to reduce the level. Fuck off.
I don't know who you think my guy is. I haven't voted for a Democrat or Republican since I was duped into thinking George W Bush might be a decent president.
The government fucked up immigration, no doubt. That's no excuse to throw due process out the window now. 15M people is a lot. Based on the "mistake" rate Trump's admin has demonstrated that means hundreds of thousands of mistakes. I'm not willing to accept that.
The administration is following due process rules as currently defined under the law. Full stop.
You being a social conservative/neocon explains a lot.
LoL
"...Trump had an end in mind (and thinks he has a mandate to accomplish that end, no matter what), and he's using any "legal" means he can find to get to that end, regardless of whether it clearly applies or not..."
BTW, stuff your two-bit psychology and your TDS up your ass; your head is begging for company.
There IS NO defense.
They ARE here illegally.
This isn't in question.
Actually, for at least one notable person, it is very much in question.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/trump-admin-admits-it-wrongfully-deported-man-to-el-salvadoran-prison-wont-bring-him-back/ar-AA1C5bwB
Leo, does article 2 exist or not?
Did you bother researching your outrage at all?
You and Nelson seemingly think coequal means subservient.
I tend to think that liberty shouldn't be taken without due process, regardless of which branch is doing the taking.
Does 5A exist or not?
What due process do you think illegal immigrants are owed?
Really trying to figure out where you are coming from, as it seems obvious to me that it would amount to determining if they are a citizen or not, which doesn’t require a court, and explaining why they are being deported if they are not a citizen.
It's spelled out pretty well in the article.
Notice that "alien friends" may certainly be punished by the normal U.S. legal system for whatever crimes they commit while on U.S. soil. They may be deprived of their life, their liberty, and their property. But—and this is a big but—they may only be deprived of life, liberty, or property after they have received due process of law, which is what the Constitution guarantees to all persons, not just to all citizens.
Madison's definition of "alien friends" plainly applies to any noncitizen who is alleged to be a member of Tren de Aragua. That person's alleged criminal activity was "committed by the individual, not by his nation, and against the municipal law, not against the law of nations." Any such alleged gang member is therefore entitled to receive due process of law before he is punished, including when the proper punishment for him is deportation.
That doesn’t say what the due process should be, just that they should receive it….
I assumed that was pretty apparent. I would start with not locking people up in El Salvadorian prisons who have no criminal record and haven't even been in front of a judge.
And here you proved your fucking ignorant. A vast majority of these people already had both criminal records and final deportation orders.
Do you always argue from ignorance?
That would be the punishment (FWIW, I’d rather we not ship people off to a third party country), not the due process.
If we can’t even define what process illegal immigrants (or even visa holders) are due, how do you expect to convince anyone that it’s being violated?
How about the most basic: if the government says someone is an illegal and a criminal, they have to prove it before they send that person to prison, in El Salvador or anywhere else.
Why is that so unreasonable? It is, after all, in the Constitution.
That is not spelled out well. It is emotional coping instead of intellectual construction.
“ What due process do you think illegal immigrants are owed?”
For starters, they should be able to have a hearing to determine if they are, in fact, illegals before they get sent to prison (also something that requires due process) in a foreign country.
“We say he’s an illegal and a criminal” should never just be blindly accepted because the government said so.
Also, when you inevitably fuck up and send someone who is neither an illegal or a criminal to a prison with a history of torture, don’t just throw up your hands and say, “Oh, well. We made a mistake. He’s just going to have to accept it because we won’t bring him back.”.
"I tend to think that liberty shouldn't be taken without due process, regardless of which branch is doing the taking."
Oh, aren't you just a wonderful person! How about YOU launch an effort to get him and every other claimant returned.
To your house.
No liberty is being taken. The VISA holders are guests that ar ebbing made to leave. The illegals are nothing ore than criminal trespassers.
Case closed.
You tend to ignore actual regulatory and constitutional construction due to your feels.
Visas ans green cards are a civil agreement, not criminal. They can be revoked under article 2 and statutory construction at any time. The Supreme Court has said this.
Even the fucking 9th stated the president has sole discretion over TPS under trumps first term.
Your entire belief system is one of ignorance.
“ They can be revoked under article 2 and statutory construction at any time.”
Perhaps (it’s been repeatedly pointed out to you by lawyers here that your take on the SCOTUS ruling is wrong). But that doesn’t mean the government can send those people to prison. For that, due process is required.
Or do you think that’s the government can imprison people on their say-so, no hearing required?
Did you know that Article 2 is actually a think retard?
Nelson is a retard when it comes to thinking.
Buyers remorse from Joe Rogan?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-rogan-on-horrific-trump-deportations-lets-not-get-innocent-gay-hairdressers-lumped-up-with-the-gangs/
Damon, not to late to change your name and start a new career...27 States File Brief with Supreme Court Backing Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act...But Damon is correct and 27 state AG's are just wrong.,
Have to admire your chutzpah