Introduction
A recent CNN article provoked intense debate after reporting that a federal appeals court rejected a request from the Trump administration to lift a judge’s order compelling the U.S. government to facilitate the return of a deported asylum seeker. The case, involving a Venezuelan migrant sent to El Salvador, raised alarming questions about due process, deportation under the Alien Enemies Act, and whether national security claims can override established legal protections. This fact-check investigates several critical claims in the article to answer the reader’s core question: Can national security be used by the U.S. government to sidestep due process in asylum proceedings?
Historical Context
The U.S. immigration system has long grappled with balancing national security concerns and protection of asylum seekers’ rights. Following 9/11, expanded security powers including the USA PATRIOT Act enabled faster removals and detentions, but these moves often drew legal challenges for bypassing due process. Similarly, the Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, allows the U.S. to detain or deport nationals from hostile nations during declared wars. While rarely used, it was controversially invoked during World War II and now under Trump’s recent claims about Venezuelan nationals associated with gang activity. This case reflects the tension between executive power and legal protections guaranteed by asylum laws.
Claim #1: The Trump administration deported Cristian under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime authority
This claim is accurate. The Alien Enemies Act, part of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, allows the President to detain or remove non-citizens from hostile nations during wartime. In this situation, the Trump administration invoked the Act amid unproven national security concerns related to Venezuelan gang affiliations. According to the CNN article, Cristian was removed under this authority, despite Venezuela and the United States not being officially at war. Legal scholars argue that using this statute outside formal wartime situations is constitutionally murky. As of 2025, no formal DOJ ruling or legal precedent has validated the act’s use this way.
[Source: Cornell Law – 50 U.S.C § 21]
Claim #2: The government violated a court settlement by deporting Cristian before his asylum claim was reviewed
This claim is supported by court records. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled in April that the government breached the terms of a court-approved settlement involving protections for certain young asylum seekers, which Cristian was reportedly covered under. Her opinion, quoted in the CNN article, states clearly that no exception existed in the agreement to allow expulsion based on national security allegations. Judicial documents confirm that deporting Cristian without first adjudicating his asylum request violated the procedural rights embedded in the agreement.
[Source: ACLU Press Release – Asylum Return Order]
Claim #3: The appeals court ruling compels the administration to take diplomatic action to return Cristian from El Salvador
This is mostly accurate. Judge Gallagher originally directed the U.S. government to make a “good faith request” to El Salvador to release Cristian back into U.S. custody—a directive upheld by the 4th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision. While the dissenting judge described this as “overstepping” judicial authority into foreign policy, no existing statute bars a federal judge from making such a directive in the context of remedying unlawful deportation. Courts have occasionally ordered similar remedies, especially where deportation violates settlement agreements or human rights protections.
[Source: Georgetown Law – Judicial Remedies in Deportation Cases]
Claim #4: The government’s claim that Cristian was a gang member justified bypassing his asylum hearing
This claim lacks sufficient supporting evidence. The government asserted Cristian was part of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, but the court record indicates this claim was not subject to independent adjudication before his removal. As both Judge Gallagher and the concurring appeals judges emphasized, the government provided this justification only after the deportation had occurred, denying Cristian any opportunity to contest the accusation. While the government may present risk-based arguments in immigration cases, it must still adhere to statutory due process. Denial of process based purely on unverified accusations contravenes constitutional protections.
[Source: DOJ – Asylum Procedures Manual]
Conclusion
The CNN article provides a generally accurate depiction of the legal conflict surrounding the deportation of Cristian, a Venezuelan asylum seeker sent to El Salvador. It correctly outlines the government’s reliance on rarely used legal tools, the judicial opposition to bypassing due process, and the court rulings compelling action. However, the article could have included deeper context on the disputed use of the Alien Enemies Act in peacetime and clarified that national security claims do not inherently override due process in asylum law. Overall, there’s no evidence the government can lawfully bypass due process simply by invoking national security—judicial precedent mandates procedural fairness regardless of the claimant’s background.
Get Involved and Stay Informed
Want to verify more headlines for truth? Download the DBUNK app today and never fall for misinformation again. Follow us on social media to stay updated on the facts that matter—and submit your own fact-check requests anytime, free of charge.
Read the Original Article
You can view the original report here: https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/politics/asylum-seeker-el-salvador-order
