A recent article titled "Trump’s Deportation Play: Right Goal, Wrong Move" argues that President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is legally and strategically flawed. However, this argument misunderstands the constitutional authority of the executive branch, the validity of the AEA, and the role of the judiciary in national security matters. Let’s break it down point by point.

The Alien Enemies Act Is Not a Stretch, It’s the Law

The claim that the AEA is meant only for wars between nations ignores the text of the statute itself. The law grants the President the power to act against foreign nationals during times of conflict or invasion not just in declared wars. The article dismisses the idea that Tren de Aragua qualifies under this law, but that argument ignores the evidence that Venezuela’s government facilitated their entry into the U.S.. When a criminal force enters the country with state backing or direction, it meets the criteria for a “predatory incursion” under the AEA.

Furthermore, the argument that the AEA is "outdated" is legally meaningless. The U.S. Constitution itself is older than the AEA; does that mean it’s no longer valid? A law remains enforceable unless repealed, and the AEA has never been struck down or repealed by Congress. It is still part of the legal framework for national security.

Judicial Overreach Is the Real Issue

The article claims that Trump’s use of the AEA gave activist judges an easy legal excuse to block him. But the bigger issue is judicial overreach. Federal courts do not have unlimited power to interfere with executive national security decisions. The President, not unelected district judges, is responsible for national defense. The judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, but courts cannot seize executive powers that the Constitution explicitly grants the Commander-in-Chief.

The courts did not stop the Biden administration from mass-releasing illegal aliens, yet they now block a president from removing dangerous foreign criminals. This double standard is a constitutional crisis, and Trump is addressing it by using laws that Congress has already passed.

Existing Immigration Laws? Not a Better Option

The article argues that Trump should have relied on existing immigration laws instead of invoking the AEA. But immigration courts are already overwhelmed, and activist judges often block deportations on technicalities. Waiting for years of litigation is not a real solution; it’s an excuse for inaction.

The suggestion that Trump should have sent Tren de Aragua members to Guantanamo Bay instead does not solve the legal issue. If judges are willing to block deportations now, they would also find ways to challenge Guantanamo detentions. The President’s approach of invoking a clear, existing statute that does not require endless court battles is legally sound and ensures immediate action.

Trump Is Following the Law, Not Bending It

The article suggests that Trump is setting a dangerous precedent by using a national security law for deportations. But this argument is backwards. The real danger is allowing courts to override the President’s constitutional authority to defend the country.

Trump’s move is not about political optics. It is about restoring executive authority that has been eroded by activist judges and bureaucratic delays. The Constitution does not give federal judges command over immigration enforcement. The President is acting well within his authority to remove foreign threats without having to litigate every single case for years in immigration courts.

In other words...

Tren de Aragua must be deported, and President Trump has the legal and constitutional power to do so under the Alien Enemies Act. The judicial overreach that has stalled deportations for years is the real crisis, and Trump’s actions are a direct challenge to a broken system that has failed to protect American citizens.

Ignoring the clear text of the AEA, misrepresenting the President’s constitutional role, and claiming that existing immigration laws would have made this easier are flawed arguments that do not hold up to scrutiny. If the courts continue to interfere with the President’s national security decisions, Congress has the power to check the judiciary through impeachment, defunding, or restructuring lower courts. The separation of powers must be restored, and enforcing the law as written is the only way to do it.

Legal Precedents & Laws That Support Trump’s Authority

1. Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – Grants the President power to detain or deport nationals of hostile nations during times of invasion or conflict. Still valid and in effect today.

2. Haig v. Agee (1981) – Supreme Court ruled that the President has broad authority in national security matters, including actions against foreign threats.

3. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – While limiting executive power in domestic matters, the ruling affirmed that the President has greater authority in foreign affairs and national security.

4. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950) – The Supreme Court held that the executive branch has plenary power over the admission and exclusion of aliens, and that courts should not interfere with national security decisions.

5. Trump v. Hawaii (2018) – The Court reaffirmed that the President has broad discretion to exclude foreign nationals from the U.S. when national security is at stake.

6. Congress’s Power Over the Judiciary – The Constitution gives Congress the ability to remove lower courts, limit their jurisdiction, defund them, or impeach judges who abuse their authority. This is a legitimate constitutional check when courts overstep their bounds.

President Trump is enforcing a law written by the Founding Fathers, not twisting legal boundaries. The real constitutional crisis isn’t his enforcement of immigration laws. It’s the judiciary’s overreach into executive national security decisions. The Commander-in-Chief has the authority and obligation to protect the nation from foreign threats, and Congress has the power to rein in activist judges when they obstruct that duty for political reasons.

As Stephen Miller laid out in his recent interview (watch here), the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 gives the President clear and unquestionable authority to remove foreign threats without interference from unelected judges. In the interview, Miller obliterates a CNN reporter, exposing their misrepresentation of the law and refusal to acknowledge the President’s constitutional powers. When pressed, the reporter couldn’t even answer basic legal questions about whether a district judge has the right to direct troop movements, because they do not.

This is not a legal gray area; the Constitution is clear. Allowing a single judge to override the President’s national security decisions is not law and order—it’s legal chaos.

As Democrats struggle to recover from their historic 2024 defeat, they are launching a new initiative: holding “People’s Town Halls” in Republican-held congressional districts to regain momentum before the 2026 midterms. Led by figures such as Senator Bernie Sanders and former VP candidate Tim Walz, this strategy aims to pressure Republicans on issues like Social Security, veterans' benefits, and food assistance.

However, despite the Democrats’ optimism, the strategy is flawed. Political data, electoral trends, and historical precedent suggest that these town halls will do little to shift the political landscape. Here are seven key reasons why this initiative is unlikely to succeed.

1. Democrats Are Fighting on Unfavorable Terrain

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has announced town halls in several Republican-held districts, including:

​With Donald Trump back in office, the Democratic Party faces a crisis. The policies of the radical left are being aggressively rolled back, and public sentiment is shifting toward common-sense, America First priorities. In response, some Democrats are floating the idea of a party "rebrand" to regain lost ground. Signs of this shift include Governor Gavin Newsom's controversial podcast featuring MAGA figures like Steve Bannon, which has drawn ire from fellow Democrats , and Michelle Obama's new podcast focusing on personal well-being over politics . Additionally, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's support for the GOP-led continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown has been seen as a move toward centrism . However, this rebranding strategy is doomed to fail—at least in the short term. Here's why:​

1. The Marxist Wing Won’t Surrender Decades of Work

The progressive, Marxist-leaning faction of the Democratic Party has spent decades capturing institutions—media, academia, government bureaucracies, and corporate boardrooms. They’ve pushed policies like DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), climate extremism, and government-controlled healthcare.

Now, with Trump dismantling these programs, moderates may want to shift back to a more centrist position. But the Marxist base won’t allow it. These activists view their policies as irreversible progress and will fight any attempt to abandon them. If Democrats try to rebrand, expect civil war within the party—protests, primary challenges, and mass defections.

2. Losing 20% of Their Base Means Electoral Disaster

If the Democratic Party truly pivots away from radical leftist policies, they risk losing at least 20% of their core base. These are the activists, college-educated progressives, and socialists who have driven the party’s agenda since Obama’s presidency.

Without these voters, Democrats face a massive electoral disadvantage. Trump’s policies—like restoring energy independence, securing the border, and cutting bureaucratic waste—are already resonating with working-class voters and minorities who were once considered solidly Democratic​.

The party simply can’t afford to alienate its Marxist wing while Trump consolidates his 80/20 issues—the widely popular stances that resonate across the political spectrum​.

3. Wokeness Shielded Their Ideas—Without It, They Can’t Compete

For years, leftist ideas have thrived not because they were popular, but because they were protected from open debate. The use of “wokeness” as a cultural weapon, labeling critics as bigots, racists, or science deniers, kept policies like radical climate action, transgender ideology, and open borders from facing real scrutiny.

Trump’s return has shattered that shield. His administration is actively dismantling DEI initiatives, cutting off funding to progressive causes, and demanding transparency in government spending.​

Without the protection of censorship, Democrats now have to win arguments on the playing field of ideas—and that’s a battle they are losing.

4. Doge and Trump’s Transparency Initiatives Are Exposing Corruption

One of the biggest threats to the Democratic Party’s rebrand is the rapid exposure of government waste and corruption. Trump’s executive orders mandating "radical transparency" in federal spending have already uncovered billions wasted on DEI programs, climate regulations, and pandemic-era policies.

At the same time, the rise of decentralized platforms (led by Doge-style internet sleuths) has stripped legacy media of its monopoly on information. Stories about corruption in government-funded climate science, vaccine mandates, and FBI collusion are spreading like wildfire. This makes it nearly impossible for Democrats to control the narrative. Any attempt to rebrand while these scandals unfold will be met with immediate backlash.

5. Election Integrity Reforms Mean They Can’t Lose Their Base

Trump’s administration is aggressively pursuing election integrity measures requiring voter ID, purging illegal voters from rolls, and implementing stricter mail-in ballot regulations​

These changes make it much harder for Democrats to rely on their traditional turnout operations.

Without those advantages, Democrats must rely entirely on their actual voting base. That means they cannot afford to lose the 20% Marxist vote, even if it means continuing to alienate moderates. A rebrand that loses left-wing activists while also failing to regain working-class voters would spell electoral disaster in 2026 and 2028.

In other words: The Democrats Are Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The Democratic Party’s rebrand attempt is a non-starter. They cannot afford to lose their radical left base, but they also cannot win over moderates while clinging to progressive extremism. Meanwhile, Trump’s administration is dismantling their policy gains, exposing corruption, and making elections more secure.

For now, Democrats are trapped. They either double down on the radical left and continue losing mainstream voters—or they pivot and risk internal collapse. Either way, the future looks bleak for them in the short term or perhaps permanently.