White House Official's Swift Action Foils Judge's Attempt to Block Deportation of Criminal Aliens

Few people, even within President Donald Trump’s administration, appear to grasp the fundamental issue at hand.

Of course, I could be mistaken in that assumption. Perhaps Trump's team fully understands the matter but has opted to address it based on optics and strategic convenience. If that is the case, one can recognize the reasoning behind it, though it underscores the absurdity of our so-called “republic.”

As reported by Axios, two senior officials within Trump’s administration revealed that a small, determined team, led by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristy Noem, acted decisively to facilitate the removal of approximately 250 Venezuelan gang members before U.S. District Judge James Boasberg—an appointee of former President Barack Obama—could step in to block the deportations with what would have been an audacious and baseless ruling.

Late Friday, Trump discreetly signed an executive order invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.

To preempt any legal obstruction, Miller and Noem efficiently “orchestrated” the rapid deportation of two planeloads of Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members, ensuring their departure from Texas to El Salvador.

By Saturday, Boasberg attempted to exert his authority by issuing an order to stop the deportations. However, by that time, the planes were already beyond U.S. airspace.

This situation is layered with misunderstandings, making it difficult to determine where to start unpacking the issue.

First, let’s consider the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.

Axios characterized it as a “war-time law.”

However, there was no official war in 1798.

Those familiar with history—assuming they weren’t too bored by traditional textbook accounts—may recall the Quasi-War, a largely unacknowledged naval conflict between the United States and revolutionary France. During this time, President John Adams enacted the Alien Enemies Act, granting him authority to deport foreign nationals deemed security threats.

In its original context, the legislation was controversial. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison even condemned it as oppressive. However, in today’s context, that debate is irrelevant.

The so-called “war-time” conditions of 2025 are strikingly similar to those of 1798. After all, the Founding Fathers never officially declared war on France, either.

Furthermore, Section 1 of the Alien Enemies Act referenced “any invasion or predatory incursion.”

Here’s the critical point: No actual invasion happened in 1798, which justified Jefferson and Madison’s opposition to the law’s enforcement at that time.

Conversely, under the blatantly authoritarian administration of former President Joe Biden, an invasion did occur. Therefore, the Alien Enemies Act is far more applicable today than it was in 1798.

So much for the erroneous historical interpretation.

Next, we must address Boasberg’s remarkable arrogance.

“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,” the judge declared, according to Politico. “Make sure it’s complied with immediately.”

And if not, Judge Boasberg? What was your plan to enforce that directive?

Boasberg’s rationale for halting the deportations was that he needed additional time to evaluate the legality of Trump’s executive order. However, this highlights the primary issue, which we will explore further.

Meanwhile, there appears to be another major misunderstanding—Trump administration officials seem more focused on battling Boasberg on strategic and public relations grounds rather than on constitutional principles.

“You have Venezuelan gang members … These are bad guys, as the president would say,” a senior White House official remarked to Axios.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed this sentiment.

“If the Democrats want to argue in favor of turning a plane full of rapists, murderers, and gangsters back to the United States, that’s a fight we are more than happy to take,” Leavitt told Axios.

Certainly, the optics of deporting violent criminals work in Trump’s favor. However, that is not the crux of the matter. The real issue is whether Trump possesses the constitutional authority to expel these criminals or not.

Similarly, other officials within the administration have taken an unusual approach—while defending Trump’s constitutional authority under Article II, they also seem to be placing their hopes in the Supreme Court, an institution rooted in Article III, to validate that authority.

“This is headed to the Supreme Court. And we’re going to win,” a senior White House official confidently stated to Axios.

“It’s the showdown that was always going to happen between the two branches of government,” another official—or perhaps the same one—told the outlet.

A showdown? How exactly does a confrontation between the executive and judicial branches resolve itself … in the Supreme Court?

For reference, the United States Constitution makes no mention of the Supreme Court serving as the final interpreter of the document’s meaning. The judiciary has merely seized that power over time, but it has no legitimate foundation in a true republic.

To her credit, Leavitt came closest to acknowledging the core issue.

“The written order and the Administration’s actions do not conflict,” she stated, according to Axios. “Moreover, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear — federal courts generally have no jurisdiction over the President’s conduct of foreign affairs, his authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, and his core Article II powers to remove foreign alien terrorists from U.S. soil and repel a declared invasion.”

She still referred to the Supreme Court, but at least she emphasized the strong “no jurisdiction” argument.

Furthermore, it’s understandable why administration officials have chosen the approach of strategic messaging.

For one, no rational individual wants criminal illegal immigrants roaming freely in the United States. Boasberg’s decision thus underscores the radical left’s dangerous open-border stance, which bolsters Trump’s position in public discourse.

Secondly, a Supreme Court ruling favoring the administration would provide the clearest resolution. If the justices affirm Trump’s authority, those who have manipulated the judiciary to obstruct an elected president from fulfilling his constitutional duties would have no further recourse.

However, this approach carries significant risks. There is no certainty about how the Supreme Court might rule, especially given its current composition.

More importantly, prioritizing expediency and a decisive resolution does not necessarily align with constitutional integrity. The Trump administration would be better served by outright rejecting judicial overreach rather than relying on the courts.

Unfortunately, even Trump’s legal team has been influenced by the flawed perspectives instilled by modern legal education. Law schools propagate a distorted historical narrative that elevates judicial rulings and precedents above the true historical foundations of the Constitution. The document itself does not grant the judiciary the expansive power it routinely claims.

Simply put, in a system dominated by judicial supremacy, a true republic cannot endure.