SAN SALVADOR: The US government used an 18th-century wartime law to deport more than 200 Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador, where they were immediately transferred to the country’s maximum-security gang prison.
And while a federal judge in Washington tries to determine whether the US government defied his order to return the migrants while they were in the air and insists that they must get an opportunity to challenge their designations as alleged members of a notorious gang, there has been no word from El Salvador’s president or judiciary about what the prisoners’ legal status is in that country.
That may change soon. On Monday, lawyers hired by the Venezuelan government took legal action on behalf of the Venezuelan prisoners seeking their release from the prison, which US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is scheduled to visit Wednesday.
The US says the Venezuelans were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, a criminal organization that US President Donald Trump declared an invading force, but has provided no evidence of their alleged membership. The Alien Enemies Act allows noncitizens to be deported without the opportunity to go before an immigration or federal court judge.
El Salvador hasn’t had diplomatic relations with Venezuela since 2019, so the Venezuelans imprisoned there do not have any consular support from their government either.
Even Salvadoran citizens have been living under a state of emergency that has suspended fundamental rights since 2022 and the country’s judiciary is not considered independent. All of which raises questions about the prisoners’ legal future in El Salvador.
What has El Salvador’s government said about the prisoners’ status in the country?
Nothing.
President Nayib Bukele announced Sunday that the United States had sent what he called “238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua” to El Salvador and they were immediately sent to its maximum security gang prison. The US government would pay an annual fee for their incarceration, Bukele wrote in a post on X.
El Salvador’s Attorney General’s Office and Presidential Commissioner for Human Rights and Freedom of Expression did not respond to requests for comment about the status of the Venezuelan prisoners.
What do El Salvador’s laws say about the status of these prisoners?
Lawyer David Morales, legal director for the nongovernmental organization Cristosal, said there was no legal basis for the Venezuelans’ imprisonment in El Salvador. He said he knew of no Salvadoran law or international treaty that would support their imprisonment.
“They are illegal detentions because they haven’t been submitted to the jurisdiction of a Salvadoran judge, nor have they been prosecuted or convicted in El Salvador,” he said. As such, their imprisonment here is “arbitrary.”
He said El Salvador’s prosecutor’s office for human rights would have the authority to intervene, because it has a broad mandate when it comes to prisoners, “but we already know that it’s not playing its role because it is dominated, subjected to political power.”
What are lawyers doing?
Lawyers hired by the Venezuelan government filed a legal action Monday in El Salvador aimed at freeing 238 Venezuelans deported by the United States who are being held in a Salvadoran maximum-security prison.
Jaime Ortega, who says he represents 30 of the imprisoned Venezuelans, said his firm filed the habeas corpus petition with the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Chamber. He said that by extension they requested that it be applied to all Venezuelans detained in El Salvador.
Before it was filed, constitutional lawyer Enrique Anaya had suggested human rights organizations and the prisoners’ families should file habeas corpus petitions, essentially compelling the government to prove someone’s detention was justified “as a mechanism to denounce (the situation) as well as to pressure” the government.
Still, Anaya said the lack of judicial independence in El Salvador made success unlikely. Bukele’s party removed the justices of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional chamber in 2021 and replaced them with judges seen as more amenable to the administration.
“Who is going to decide these people’s freedom, US judges, Salvadoran judges?” Anaya asked. The habeas corpus petitions could at least “show the illegitimacy of this vacuum.”
How hard is it for Salvadorans to get out of prisons there?
El Salvador has lived under a state of emergency since March 2022, when Congress granted Bukele extraordinary powers to fight the country’s powerful street gangs.
Since then, some 84,000 people have been arrested, accused of gang ties. The state of emergency has allowed authorities to act without basic protections like access to a lawyer or even being told why they’re being arrested. They can be held for 15 days without seeing a judge.
Homicides have plummeted in El Salvador and the improved security has fueled Bukele’s popularity.
But while Bukele has said some 8,000 of those arrested have been freed for lack of evidence, many more have found no way out.
Last year, the Due Process Foundation published a report showing that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court had “systematically” rejected more than 6,000 habeas corpus petitions made by families of people arrested under the state of emergency.
Venezuelan migrants deported by the US ended up in a Salvadoran prison. This is their legal status
https://arab.news/4jgdd
Venezuelan migrants deported by the US ended up in a Salvadoran prison. This is their legal status
- El Salvador hasn’t had diplomatic relations with Venezuela since 2019
- So the Venezuelans imprisoned there do not have any consular support from their government either
White House slams Episcopal Church’s refusal to resettle white South Africans
- The Episcopal Church said it would end its refugee resettlement program with the US government rather than comply with orders to help resettle the white South Africans
WASHINGTON: The White House questioned Tuesday the humanitarian commitment of the influential Episcopal Church after it refused to comply with a federal directive to help resettle white Afrikaners granted refugee status by the Trump administration.
Trump ran on an anti-immigrant platform and essentially halted refugee arrivals in the United States after taking office, but made an exception for white Afrikaners despite South Africa’s insistence that they do not face persecution in their homeland.
On Monday, around 50 white South Africans arrived for resettlement in the United States, after Trump granted them refugee status as victims of what he called a “genocide.”
That claim — oft-repeated by Trump’s Pretoria-born ally, billionaire Elon Musk — has been widely dismissed as absurd, including by the South African government.
On Monday, the Episcopal Church said it would end its refugee resettlement program with the US government rather than comply with orders to help resettle the white South Africans.
In a statement, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly criticized the decision as raising “serious questions about its supposed commitment to humanitarian aid.”
She claimed white Afrikaners — who are primarily descendants of European colonizers and whose ethnic group dominated South African politics until apartheid was abolished in 1994 — had “faced unspeakable horrors.”
On Monday, the church had said it would wind up its refugee resettlement grant agreements — amounting to more than $50 million annually — with the US federal government rather than comply with Trump’s orders.
In a statement, the church’s presiding bishop was scathing in his criticism of the administration’s decision to grant the white South Africans refugee status.
“It has been painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years,” said Sean W. Rowe.
Under eligibility guidelines published by the US embassy, applicants for US resettlement must either be of Afrikaner ethnicity or belong to a racial minority in South Africa.
The Episcopal Church said that it could not comply with Trump’s order “in light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation.”
It said its programs with the US federal government would be wound up by the end of the fiscal year, but that its work on refugee resettlement would continue, including supporting recently arrived refugees from around the world.
20 Democratic attorneys general sue Trump administration over conditions placed on federal funds
- The lawsuits are the latest legal actions that Democratic-led states have taken against Trump since he took office earlier this year
PROVIDENCE, R.I.: A coalition of 20 state Democratic attorneys general filed two federal lawsuits on Tuesday, claiming that the Trump administration is threatening to withhold billions of dollars in transportation and disaster-relief funds unless states agree to certain immigration enforcement actions.
According to the complaints, both Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy have threatened to cut off funding to states that refuse to comply with President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.
While no federal funding is currently being withheld, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said during a news conference on Tuesday that the threat was “imminent.”
“President Donald Trump can’t use these funds as a bargaining chip as his way of ensuring states abide by his preferred policies,” Bonta added.
Department of Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that the lawsuit will not stop the Trump Administration from “restoring the rule of law.”
“Cities and states who break the law and prevent us from arresting criminal illegal aliens should not receive federal funding. The President has been clear on that,” she said.
Duffy said in a statement that the 20 states have filed the lawsuit because “their officials want to continue breaking federal law and putting the needs of illegal aliens above their own citizens.”
Both lawsuits say that the Trump administration is violating the US Constitution by trying to dictate federal spending when Congress has that power — not the executive branch.
On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts and eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs or risk losing funds.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin criticized the timing of Duffy’s letter when Newark’s airport struggles with radar outages and other issues.
“I wish the administration would stop playing politics with people’s lives,” Platkin said. “I wish Secretary Duffy would do his damn job, which is to make sure planes land on time, not to direct immigration enforcement.”
Meanwhile, on Feb. 24, states received letters from the Department of Homeland Security declaring that states that “refuse to cooperate with, refuse to share information with, or even actively obstruct federal immigration enforcement reject these ideals and the history we share in common as Americans.”
“If any government entity chooses to thumb its nose at the Department of Homeland Security’s national security and public safety mission, it should not receive a single dollar of the Department’s money unless Congress has specifically required it,” Noem wrote in her letter.
Attorneys general behind the lawsuits include the following states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont.
The cases are being spearheaded by California but were filed in federal court in Rhode Island, a detail that the attorneys general defended by saying they filed in “any court that is going to be fair and objective and consider our factual presentation and legal analysis.”
The lawsuits are the latest legal actions that Democratic-led states have taken against Trump since he took office earlier this year. Bonta noted that California has filed more than 20 lawsuits against the administration, while Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said his state has launched more than a dozen.
While the lawsuits have challenged policies on tariffs, federal employee firings and health care research, Trump’s focus on immigration enforcement and the mass deportation of immigrants in the United States illegally have received the most attention.
This has included the president’s promise to mass deport people and the start of a registry required for all those who are in the country illegally.
“What we’re seeing is a creeping authoritarianism,” Neronha said.
Federal grand jury indicts Wisconsin judge in immigration case, allowing charges to continue
- Prosecutors charged Dugan in April via complaint with concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction
MADISON, Wisconsin: A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted a Wisconsin judge accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities, allowing the case against her to continue.
The arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan escalated a clash between President Donald Trump’s administration and local authorities over the Republican’s sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition to the crackdown.
Prosecutors charged Dugan in April via complaint with concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction. In the federal criminal justice system, prosecutors can initiate charges against a defendant directly by filing a complaint or present evidence to a grand jury and let that body decide whether to issue charges.
A grand jury still reviews charges brought by complaint to determine whether enough probable cause exists to continue the case as a check on prosecutors’ power. If the grand jury determines there’s probable cause, it issues a written statement of the charges known as an indictment. That’s what happened in Dugan’s case.
Her case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.
Prosecutors say Dugan escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back jury door on April 18 after learning that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking his arrest.
According to court documents, Flores-Ruiz illegally reentered the US after being deported in 2013. Online state court records show he was charged with three counts of misdemeanor domestic abuse in Milwaukee County in March. He was in Dugan’s courtroom that morning of April 18 for a hearing.
Court documents suggest Dugan was alerted to the agents’ presence by her clerk, who was informed by an attorney that the agents appeared to be in the hallway. An affidavit says Dugan was visibly angry over the agents’ arrival and called the situation “absurd” before leaving the bench and retreating to her chambers. She and another judge later approached members of the arrest team in the courthouse with what witnesses described as a “confrontational, angry demeanor.”
After a back-and-forth with the agents over the warrant for Flores-Ruiz, Dugan demanded they speak with the chief judge and led them away from the courtroom, according to the affidavit.
She then returned to the courtroom and was heard saying words to the effect of “wait, come with me” and ushered Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a back jury door typically used only by deputies, jurors, court staff and in-custody defendants, according to the affidavit. Flores-Ruiz was free on a signature bond in the abuse case at the time, according to online state court records.
Federal agents ultimately captured him outside the courthouse after a foot chase.
The state Supreme Court suspended Dugan from the bench in late April, saying the move was necessary to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. A reserve judge is filling in for her.
Ukraine completes steps for minerals deal with US, deputy prime minister says
Ukraine has concluded procedures for implementation of a deal with the United States on exploiting minerals, including the operation of an investment fund, the country’s first deputy prime minister said on Tuesday.
Yulia Svyrydenko gave few details of the latest step in securing approval of the accord, promoted by US President Donald Trump, but it was known that two additional documents were drawn up as part of its implementation.
“Another milestone on the path to launching the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund: Ukraine has completed all necessary procedures on schedule,” Svyrydenko wrote in English on social media.
She said a note certifying completion of the process had been handed to interim US Charge d’Affaires Julie Davis.
“These are equal agreements — forward-looking, aligned with Ukraine’s national interests, and structured to ensure investment flows exclusively into Ukraine’s recovery and growth,” Svyrydenko wrote.
After weeks of tough negotiations following a shouting match between President Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump in the Oval Office, Svyrydenko signed the minerals agreement in Washington and it was ratified last week by the Ukrainian parliament.
After that vote, Svyrydenko described the accord as “not merely a legal construct — it is the foundation of a new model of interaction with a key strategic partner.”
The minerals agreement hands the United States preferential access to new Ukrainian minerals deals and sets up the investment fund, which could be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine for the first 10 years.
Ukraine also sees the deal as a way to unlock supplies of new US weapons, especially additional Patriot air defense systems it sees as vital to protect against Russian air attacks.
Zelensky hailed the reworked draft of the agreement as a marked improvement over earlier versions that some critics in Ukraine had denounced as “colonial.” The accord also acknowledges Ukraine’s bid to join the European Union.
Macron says France does not want ‘World War III’ over Ukraine
PARIS: President Emmanuel Macron said Tuesday that France did not want to unleash “World War III” over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and vowed referendums on key issues as he outlined his aims for for the remaining two years of his mandate in a marathon television appearance.
Macron, who came to power in 2017 promising radical change, will step down in 2027 after serving the maximum two terms allowed under the constitution.
On occasion over the last year, Macron has appeared as a lame duck especially after his decision to hold snap legislative elections backfired, leaving the far-right as the biggest party in parliament and his own party a diminished, minority presence.
But recent months have seen a newly energised Macron, boosted by his presence on the international front as he seeks to bring an end to the three-year-war sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“We must help Ukraine defend itself but we do not want to unleash a Third World War,” Macron said in the interview that lasted more than three hours.
“The war must cease and Ukraine must be in the best possible situation to go into negotiations,” he added.
But Macron said France was ready to start discussing with other European countries deploying French warplanes armed with nuclear weapons on their territory, as the United States does.
“The Americans have the bombs on planes in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkiye,” Macron said.
“We are ready to open this discussion. I will define the framework in a very specific way in the weeks and months to come,” he said.
Those who put their points of view in front of Macron ranged from the head of the hard-line CGT union, Sophie Binet, to Tibo Inshape, a muscular and massively followed fitness influencer.
Amid concern about some 600 jobs in France, Macron told Binet that the French operations of steelmaker ArcelorMittal would not be nationalized but vowed to save its two plants in the country.
In a key announcement, he said he favored holding several referendums on the same day for voters to decide on French social and economic “reforms.”
“I want us to organize a series of consultations,” Macron said, adding that the votes would take place on one day in coming months and address “major” economic and social reforms.
While he would not go into details, he was open to a suggestion by Prime Minister Francois Bayrou, who has proposed holding a referendum on a plan to reduce France’s debt.
However, Macron rejected the idea of putting immigration issues to a popular vote despite repeated requests from the right and far right.
Tackling delicate social issues, the French president spoke out against the wearing of religious symbols, such as the Islamic veil, in sports competitions, but he added that for non-competitive sports practice it was up to sports federations to decide.
While Macron, 47, must step down in 2027 after serving two consecutive terms, he could in theory return in 2032, something no French leader has ever done before.
But he said at the end of the TV marathon he had not yet thought about his future after 2027 and was only thinking of France in his daily work.
