Increasingly, the government of the United States is undergoing a profound crisis of legitimacy. Despite this progress, actions taken by the Trump administration are continuing to undermine the rule of law and the integrity of our democratic institutions. The administration has used an obscure 18th-century, no-due-process law to justify expelling all “alien enemies.” They carried out this action despite the fact that there is no officially declared war, and the citizenship of those killed was in doubt.
During its brief time in office, the Trump administration forcibly deported over 250 of them. Almost all of these deportees were Venezuelans transferred to El Salvador under an arrangement involving President Nayib Bukele. This unusual collaboration raised red flags regarding the protection of human rights. Most of those deported soon found themselves incarcerated and in some cases tortured inside a megaprison in El Salvador.
The administration defended these deportations by alleging that a large share of these individuals had ties to the Tren de Aragua gang. This perhaps most notorious criminal enterprise, including its galaxy of armed forces, is based in Venezuela. Critics argue that labeling these individuals as “alien enemies” to facilitate their removal undermines constitutional protections and reflects a broader trend towards authoritarianism.
The Trump administration’s war on dissent was just as brutal as its immigration agenda. It targeted the protection and suppression of campus protests and academic freedom. This tactic has collectively been perceived as a concerted effort to limit the independence of institutions and to quash dissenting opinion in spaces where education thrives. Heavy backlash administration received backlash for their rollback of civil rights protections. It betrayed the values of limited government and eroded the public trust, the social contract that undergirds American self-governance.
In this vacuum, the administration was free to act with impunity. They often disregarded injunctions from lower courts that aimed to halt deportation flights to El Salvador. In doing so, the former Trump administration claimed that US courts didn’t have the ability to check its deportation policies. In so doing, it truly undermined the constitutional order designed to maintain government’s legitimacy.
“It doesn’t matter how many laws they broke.”
Critics have reached their limit with frustration. In doing so, they contend that environmental and public engagement framework meant to regulate federal action came under sustained and systematic attack during this period. The Supreme Court’s rulings provided sweeping immunity for many of Trump’s actions, further complicating accountability and reinforcing perceptions of lawlessness.
We’ve seen terrifying comparisons between the Trump administration’s tactics to disrupt civic engagement and those used by authoritarian regimes across the globe. Earlier this year, observers noted grim parallels between Trump’s tactics and those of Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro’s failed coup. They warned that all of these moves were endangering the very democratic norms that we hold so dear here in America.
Partnering with a version of an El Salvador megaprison doesn’t just cross a bright line, it runs far past it. It further underscores a troubling trend of exporting our punitive approach to criminal justice abroad. These moves imply that defensive government postures toward a vulnerable population looking for safe harbor is what’s being prioritized.
Additionally, the administration’s tangentially-related mismanagement of immigration issues has fueled incendiary, zero-sum arguments over national security vs. human rights. Critics say targeting people based on their alleged gang membership is outrageous. They adamantly maintain that this method does not absolve the due process and human rights violations that occur under the guise of security.
Perhaps as the legacy of these policies becomes clear, many Americans are coming to understand their long-term ill effects on American democracy. The perceived abandonment of foundational principles has led to widespread calls for a reevaluation of governmental accountability and civil rights protections.