Trump Revives Alien Enemies Act, Sparking Executive Power Concerns

In recent speeches and interviews, President Donald J. Trump has suggested invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a little-known federal statute passed in 1798, to justify mass deportations of undocumented immigrants under the guise of national security. While the law remains active, its application outside a formal war context, particularly to justify immigration crackdowns, has raised concerns among constitutional experts and civil rights advocates.

Trump, who returned to the presidency after winning the 2024 election, has characterized the southern border as a “war zone” and suggested that the nation is under “invasion by foreign enemies.” He has hinted that laws like the Alien Enemies Act could provide him the authority to take “emergency action” against certain groups of migrants, particularly from countries he associates with terrorism or organized crime.

What Is the Alien Enemies Act?

The Alien Enemies Act was enacted during President John Adams’ administration as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, a controversial set of laws passed amid fears of war with France. The act grants the president the authority to detain, relocate, or remove nationals of a foreign country with which the United States is “at war.”

While the other three acts in that legislative package were quickly repealed or allowed to expire, the Alien Enemies Act was left intact and continues to be part of federal law under 50 U.S. Code § 21.

Its most visible use came during World War II, when it provided legal backing for the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian nationals- actions that are now widely condemned and for which the U.S. government formally apologized in 1988.

Legal Experts Take on Trump’s Use of the Law

Today, the United States is not at war with any country whose nationals account for significant undocumented immigration. Legal scholars argue that the Alien Enemies Act is inapplicable under current circumstances.

“The law was clearly designed for wartime use, where Congress has formally declared war,” said Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “Any effort to use it as a general immigration enforcement tool would be not only unprecedented but likely unconstitutional”.

Trump’s claim that the U.S. is experiencing a “domestic war” against foreign threats does not meet the legal threshold to activate the statute. Constitutional experts note that no president has invoked the Alien Enemies Act outside of a formally declared war in over a century.

Civil Liberties Groups Warn of Abuse of the Alien Enemies Act

Advocates argue that the president’s rhetoric revives memories of one of the darkest chapters in U.S. civil rights history. During World War II, over 120,000 Japanese Americans, many of whom were U.S. citizens, were forcibly relocated to internment camps under policies enabled in part by the Alien Enemies Act. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944), a ruling the Court disavowed in 2018.

“We’ve already seen how dangerous this law can be when used to justify collective punishment,” said Karen Korematsu, founder of the Korematsu Institute and daughter of civil rights icon Fred Korematsu. “We cannot let fear override the Constitution again”.

The American Civil Liberties Union echoed these concerns in a recent public statement: “Reviving a law rooted in wartime paranoia to target migrants and asylum seekers violates both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution”.

Immigration Experts Cite Lack of Legal Basis

Even Trump’s political opponents agree that immigration policy needs reform. However, legal scholars warn that bypassing the courts through sweeping presidential authority would undermine the rule of law.

“We have a system of immigration courts and constitutional protections for a reason,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA. “Using the Alien Enemies Act to circumvent that process is not only unlawful—it’s a step toward authoritarianism”.

The vast majority of migrants entering the U.S. from the southern border come from nations like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Venezuela, countries with which the U.S. is not at war. Experts say that fact alone makes any invocation of the Alien Enemies Act both irrelevant and dangerous.

Congressional Response and Legislative Review

Some members of Congress are calling for the repeal of the law. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) announced plans to introduce a bill that would formally sunset the Alien Enemies Act, arguing that its continued presence in the U.S. Code creates a legal gray area open to abuse.

“It was written in the 18th century, and we’ve seen how it’s been misused in the 20^th century. We shouldn’t wait to see how badly it could be misapplied in the 21^st century,” Raskin said in an interview with The Washington Post.

A Test of Executive Power in the Modern Era

The Alien Enemies Act is not the only historical statute that Trump has shown interest in reactivating. His administration has increasingly explored ways to utilize old emergency powers laws to justify aggressive policy shifts without legislative approval.

While executive authority is necessary during genuine crises, many worry that laws such as the Alien Enemies Act are overly broad, ambiguous, and prone to political misuse.

“The Constitution doesn’t give presidents the right to ignore due process,” Vladeck said. “And the courts won’t support a power grab cloaked in outdated legal language.”

Is the Alien Enemies Act Law Outdated?

The Alien Enemies Act is a legal relic. It may have served a narrowly defined purpose during the early days of the republic, but its continued existence poses a significant threat to civil liberties in a modern constitutional democracy.

Its potential revival in 2025 is not just a legal debate; it is a moral one. America must decide whether to allow centuries-old fear to override modern values of justice, fairness, and human dignity. If the past teaches us anything, it is this: when extraordinary powers are granted without clear limits, they are almost always abused.