Rubio Touts Migrants Sent to El Salvador After Judge Orders Planes Return

Authors and Context

The article in question is authored by Jason Lemon, a Senior Politics Editor at Newsweek, and Mandy Taheri, a reporter for the same publication. Both journalists are based in Brooklyn, New York, and have extensive experience in covering U.S. politics and international affairs. Jason Lemon joined Newsweek in 2018 and has previously worked as an editor at StepFeed, a Middle Eastern media startup, and as a contributor to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He has also been published in The Christian Science Monitor, The Palm Beach Post, Al Fanar Media, and A Magazine. Lemon is a graduate of the American University of Beirut in Lebanon and Andrews University in Michigan. He is fluent in English, Spanish, French, and Levantine Arabic. Mandy Taheri, on the other hand, joined Newsweek in 2024 and is also fluent in English and French. Both authors can be reached via email at j.lemon@newsweek.com and m.taheri@newsweek.com, respectively. The article itself is based on factual reporting, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporters or sourced from knowledgeable individuals.

The Federal Court Order and Conflicting Actions

The article centers on a developing story involving Secretary of State Marco Rubio and a federal court order that sought to halt the removal of 250 Venezuelans allegedly linked to the MS-13 and Tren de Agua gangs. According to Rubio, these individuals were sent to El Salvador as part of a broader effort to deport members of these gangs. Rubio claimed that the deportation included "2 dangerous top MS-13 leaders plus 21 of its most wanted" individuals, who were returned to face justice in El Salvador. Additionally, Rubio stated that the U.S. sent over 250 "alien enemy members of Tren de Aragua," a group El Salvador agreed to detain in its prisons at a cost that would purportedly save U.S. taxpayer dollars.

However, this action was carried out despite a federal judge’s order to stop the deportations. On Saturday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a directive stating, "Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States however that is accomplished. Make sure it’s complied with immediately." This order effectively grounded any planes carrying the individuals in question and required their return to the U.S.

The Legal Battle and the Alien Enemies Act

The legal battle surrounding these deportations revolves around the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798. This law, which has been used only three times in U.S. history, grants the president the authority to deport non-citizens deemed enemies of the state during times of war or national emergency. The administration’s use of this law to justify the removal of the Venezuelans has come under scrutiny, with Judge Boasberg expressing skepticism about its legality. The judge’s ruling suggests that he intends to examine whether the administration’s actions were lawful, potentially setting the stage for a significant legal challenge.

The use of the Alien Enemies Act raises questions about the limits of executive power, particularly in the context of immigration and national security. Critics argue that the law is outdated and that its application in this case may violate due process rights. The situation also highlights the ongoing tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, as well as the broader debate over immigration enforcement and human rights.

El Salvador’s Role and President Nayib Bukele’s Involvement

El Salvador has emerged as a key player in this story, with President Nayib Bukele agreeing to detain the deported individuals in his country’s prisons. Rubio praised Bukele as "the strongest security leader in our region" and a "great friend of the U.S." The arrangement reportedly includes a financial component, with El Salvador charging the U.S. a "fair price" to hold the detainees, thereby reducing the burden on American taxpayers. This partnership underscores the close relationship between the U.S. and El Salvador under Bukele’s leadership, particularly in matters of security and immigration.

Bukele’s administration has been known for its hardline approach to crime and its cooperation with the U.S. on immigration enforcement. However, critics have raised concerns about the human rights implications of this collaboration, particularly in light of El Salvador’s history of overcrowded prisons and allegations of poor conditions within its correctional facilities.

Implications and Broader Context

The deportation of these individuals, and the legal battle that has ensued, has significant implications for U.S. immigration policy and the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches. The Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act represents an unprecedented expansion of executive authority, one that could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations. The fact that a federal judge has intervened to halt the deportations suggests that the judiciary is taking a firm stance against what it perceives as an overreach of power.

Furthermore, the involvement of El Salvador raises questions about the outsourcing of immigration enforcement and the potential for human rights abuses. The use of foreign prisons to detain individuals deported from the U.S. could lead to further complications, particularly if these individuals are subjected to harsh conditions or denied due process. The financial arrangement between the two countries also raises ethical concerns, as it effectively monetizes the detention of migrants.

Conclusion and Next Steps

This is a developing story, and further updates are expected as the legal and diplomatic implications of the situation unfold. For now, the clash between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary over the use of the Alien Enemies Act remains a central point of contention. The involvement of El Salvador and President Bukele adds another layer of complexity to the narrative, highlighting the interconnected nature of immigration enforcement and international relations.

As the situation continues to evolve, it will be important to monitor both the legal proceedings and the humanitarian impact of these deportations. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for U.S. immigration policy, the role of the judiciary in checking executive power, and the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers in the region. Stay tuned for further updates as more information becomes available.