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Furthermore, the argument that the AEA is "outdated" is legally meaningless. The U.S. Constitution itself is older than the AEA; does that mean it’s no longer valid? A law remains enforceable unless repealed, and the AEA has never been struck down or repealed by Congress.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

A Coordinated Media Manipulation Effort

If there’s one thing the last few weeks have made clear, it’s that the Democratic Party and its media allies are willing to do anything to push their agenda—including fabricating polling data to manipulate public perception. As Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer attempted to force Republicans into submission on the Continuing Resolution (CR) bill, the mainstream media launched a full-scale disinformation campaign, using fake polling numbers to pressure the GOP into caving.

But as we’ll show with real data, charts, and analysis, their scheme failed spectacularly. The media’s influence is crumbling, Schumer’s shutdown threat collapsed, and Trump’s approval remains steady, despite the manufactured polling narrative.

Schumer’s Bluff and the Media’s Role

Chuck Schumer kicked off this political standoff by declaring that Republicans lacked the votes to pass their budget resolution. He insisted that Democrats were unified in blocking the GOP’s proposal and that only a "clean" extension would be acceptable.
The problem? Schumer never had real leverage. Republicans held firm, knowing full well that the political cost of a shutdown would not fall on them—especially with Trump’s popularity remaining strong.

This is where the legacy media stepped in. Suddenly, left-wing polling firms like Quinnipiac and Reuters began releasing numbers showing Trump’s approval rating tanking by 11 points in a matter of days. These polls were immediately amplified by the mainstream press, pushing the narrative that Republicans would be blamed for a shutdown and that they needed to cave.

The timing was far too convenient to be a coincidence.

The Polling Deception: Fake Numbers to Pressure the GOP

Let’s take a closer look at how the media manipulated polling to fit their agenda.

While real pollsters like Rich Baris and Rasmussen continued to show Trump’s approval holding steady or improving, left-wing pollsters claimed his support was collapsing. This was a coordinated media strategy designed to create a fake panic among Republican lawmakers.

Then, right on cue, mainstream headlines appeared reinforcing this narrative:

"New Poll Suggests Majority of Americans Would Blame Trump and GOP for Government Shutdown."

This wasn’t real public opinion—it was engineered propaganda aimed at breaking GOP unity.

The GOP Didn’t Take the Bait—And Democrats Folded

The intended effect of these fake polls was to scare Republicans into backing down. But it didn’t work. Within hours of these polls hitting the news cycle, Democrats began to cave. The pressure campaign fell apart, and even Schumer’s own party members admitted defeat:

"I will vote to keep the government open and not shut it down."

That was it. Schumer’s entire strategy collapsed overnight. The media’s fabricated polling blitz had no impact, and the Republican Party held firm against the disinformation campaign.

Polling Manipulation: A Dying Strategy

This isn’t the first time left-wing pollsters have engaged in manufactured narratives, but it might be one of the last. The polling industry is hemorrhaging credibility, with FiveThirtyEight and Monmouth shutting down after their disastrous 2024 predictions.

The reason? Voters—and even some in the media—are no longer buying into fake polling. The numbers used to push Schumer’s shutdown strategy were so blatantly disconnected from reality that even Democrats didn’t believe them.
The Takeaway: The Media’s Influence Is Crumbling

This shutdown showdown exposed just how weak the Democratic Party and mainstream media have become. Their attempts to fabricate polling data, manipulate headlines, and pressure the GOP into submission failed miserably.

Despite their best efforts, Trump remains popular, the GOP stood its ground, and Schumer was forced to retreat. This is yet another sign that the MAGA movement is stronger than ever—and that the mainstream media’s grip on public perception is slipping away for good.