Human Rights Watch (HRW) has taken a strong stance against the United States’ continued use of the Alien Enemies Act, urging Congress to repeal this legislation in its recent 59-page report. Originally instituted in 1798 as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Alien Enemies Act grants the President sweeping authority to apprehend and deport nationals of hostile countries during wartime. However, this authority has been unprecedentedly extended outside times of declared war by recent administrations, notably by former President Donald Trump.
In a critical examination, HRW outlined how the legal landscape has transformed dramatically since the Act’s inception. The United States is now a party to numerous international human rights treaties, which mandate adherence to fundamental rights such as due process and non-discrimination. HRW argues that the Alien Enemies Act starkly contradicts these obligations, particularly in ensuring individuals are not deported to countries where they might face persecution or torture.
Trump’s administration was the first to apply this Act outside declared war, notably in 2025, when at least 200 Venezuelans were deported to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, allegedly to counter the activities of the Tren de Aragua criminal organization. Observers, including the UN, have expressed concerns over potential human rights violations these individuals could face in El Salvador.
The conditions in Salvadoran prisons have been characterized by HRW as overcrowded and plagued with disease, with reports of torture and death, exacerbating the concern for those deported under the Trump administration’s policy. A federal judge recently granted habeas corpus petitions to several Venezuelans, concluding that the deportations could not legally rely on the Alien Enemies Act.
HRW has formulated nine recommendations, emphasizing that Congress should take decisive steps to repeal this Act as part of a broader strategy to align U.S. policies with contemporary human rights standards.
For the full report and further details on this issue, you can read the original article on JURIST.