Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
​U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Ted Cruz’s “Darkest Before Dawn” Melodrama Misses the Message of the Midterms

Voters in Alaska

What To Know About Alaska’s Election System

USA Presidential voters on electoral college map

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Federalism at Its Best

Blue wave with the US Capitol building

The 2026 Blue Wave: Voters Rejected Trump, Not Endorsed Democrats

Obama is campaigning ahead of the March 4, 2008 Democratic primary

The 2026 Election Has a Bit of the 2008, Obama-Style Vibe

Trump Administration Defies Judge’s Order to Halt Deportations

News

Donald Trump
President Donald Trump.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Hugo Balta
By Hugo BaltaMar 17, 2025
Hugo Balta

Hugo Balta is a journalist, educator, and communicator. Hugo is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network, a trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network, and an adjunct professor teaching journalism courses.

See More Writings by author

The Trump administration announced on Sunday that hundreds of individuals were deported after President Donald Trump invoked a significant wartime authority to expedite the deportation of migrants believed to be connected to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

This announcement follows a federal judge's temporary blocking of the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act, issued on Saturday evening. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg verbally ordered that any planes currently in the air carrying these migrants be redirected back to the United States.

Judge Boasberg stated that the temporary restraining order would be in effect for 14 days or until further court instruction. During the hearing, he noted, “Given the plaintiffs’ information, which the government did not contest, regarding active flights, I do not believe that I can wait any longer. Any plane containing these individuals that is set to take off or is already in the air needs to be returned to the United States.”

What is the Alien Enemies Act?

In 1798, as the United States braced for a potential conflict with France, Congress enacted a series of laws that expanded the federal government's authority. Concerned that immigrants might align with French interests, the Alien Enemies Act was established to grant the president extensive powers to imprison and deport non-citizens during wartime.

Since its inception, the act has been invoked only three times: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. During World War II, amid widespread anti-foreigner sentiment, the act contributed to the legal justification for the mass internment of individuals of German, Italian, and particularly Japanese descent.

Approximately 120,000 individuals of Japanese heritage, including U.S. citizens, were interned throughout the conflict.

" This Act returns our country to a shameful chapter of our history."

The Secure Families Initiative has expressed concern over using the Alien Enemies Act, stating, “We are not at war. This is not an invasion by a foreign state.”

They argue that invoking such a wartime authority is inappropriate given the current circumstances, and it raises risks for military families and civilians. "First, it is exclusively a wartime authority, which the moment we are in clearly is not. This move radically escalated an already volatile situation, and it puts the 50-70,000 U.S. service families and civilians living along the U.S.-Mexico border at risk of severe retaliation from foreign actors. Second, this Act removes crucial guardrails that ensure our service members are only ordered into missions that fall within proper legal boundaries and align with their training."

To read the full statement, click HERE.

In response, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated that the Trump administration believed it did not violate the judge’s order, as it was issued after the migrants had already departed the U.S.

Following this development, the administration is seeking a stay of the D.C. District Court judge’s ruling, and the court has requested a response from the plaintiffs' attorneys by Tuesday at 5 p.m.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network.


Latest news

​A demonstrator holds a sign
Governance & Legislation

Beyond Airstrikes: Why America Must Rethink Its Counterterrorism Strategy in Nigeria

Voters in Iowa
Ethics & Leadership

The Fork in the Road: What the 2026 Midterms Mean for MAGA, Democrats, and the GOP

​The U.S. Constitution.
Democracy

Just the Facts: What Does the Constitution Say About the Attorney General's Duty

a doctor showing a patient something on the tablet
Health

America's Cold Civil War Is Shortening American Lives

Read More

​Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe

Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe at the Ithaca Commons on October 13, 2026 in Ithaca, New York.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Sexual Violence Requires More Than Legal Accountability

In the wake of public attention to the Cornell fraternity alleged gang-rape, headlines resound with statements of concern and calls for greater accountability. These calls are not new. They have followed countless incidents of sexual violence, whether on a college campus, in connection with work, or within an intimate relationship. Despite decades of law and policy reform, sexual violence continues to run rampant. While law and policy reform are sorely needed, we will not see long-lasting change unless we address what accountability truly means. Our collective response should aim for a world where no one would ever think it was ok to commit, condone, or be a passive witness to sexual violence, never mind that it would be ok to send the kind of text messages that were allegedly exchanged at the Cornell fraternity where the rape allegedly took place.

As policymakers consider reform, a comprehensive approach to accountability should consider the known limitations of criminal and civil justice systems. Problems with the criminal legal system are legion, both within and beyond sexual violence cases. These include racially discriminatory application of laws criminalizing sexual violence, that, for example, have led to harsher punishment when the accused is a person of color and lesser punishment when the survivor is a person of color. Survivors continue to be doubted and subjected to biases and stereotypes, including that survivors lie about their experience, that they somehow invited the violence, or act with self-interest or ulterior motive when coming forward.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

From the Gilded Age to Citizens United, discover how recent Supreme Court rulings empower mega-donors, reshape party spending, and impact American democracy.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Rulings Help the GOP

American elections have always been dominated by moneyed interests. For instance, during America’s last Gilded Age, in the presidential election of 1896, William McKinley, the Republican candidate, outspent his Democratic challenger by $3.5 million (roughly $140 million in today's dollars) to $400,000 (approximately $16 million today). McKinley went on to win the election with the help of robber baron J.P. Morgan and monopoly Standard Oil. As the example shows, powerful special interests have often translated their vast economic power into political influence. But recent court decisions threaten to permanently entrench the financial imbalance between the Republican and Democratic parties.

In this light, the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) decision to transfer more than $50 million to beleaguered congressional campaigns across the country must be judged. The impact of this massive infusion of cash into the otherwise struggling Senate campaigns cannot be overemphasized. On the other side, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) cannot match the GOP’s deep pockets filled by the likes of Elon Musk. The Republicans, even before this deluge of special interest money, enjoyed financial advantages. The money is coming at a particularly pivotal moment in the campaign as Republicans find themselves electorally underwater due to Trump’s unpopularity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a judge hammering a gavel

Investigations, indictments, dismissals, convictions: what each means and the questions to ask before judging claims of political weaponization of the law.

Chris Collins/Getty Images

Just the Facts: Trump, DOJ and the Legal Process

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


The legal battles involving the Trump administration have become a constant feature of American politics and governance. Supporters often argue that many lawsuits and investigations are politically motivated attempts to block the administration's agenda. Critics contend that certain actions by the administration and the Department of Justice are themselves politically motivated or represent an improper use of government power.

Keep ReadingShow less
gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026