By Ali Lahooti, Esq.,
Lahooti Law LLC
The Alien Enemies Act is one of the oldest national security laws in the United States, yet many people today are unfamiliar with its existence. However, recent political developments have brought it back into focus, raising concerns among immigrant communities and civil rights advocates. This blog will explain the Act’s history, past applications, its modern use, who might be affected, potential benefits and risks, and what legal challenges lie ahead.
The Alien Enemies Act was enacted in 1798 as part of the broader Alien and Sedition Acts, passed during a time of heightened tensions between the U.S. and France. It granted the President the authority to detain, restrict, or remove foreign nationals from enemy nations during times of war or invasion. Initially, it applied only to male non-citizens over the age of 14 but was later expanded in 1918 to cover all foreign nationals from enemy states, regardless of gender.
Unlike the other controversial Alien and Sedition Acts, which were repealed or allowed to expire, the Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today. This means it can still be invoked under certain circumstances, even though it has not been widely used in modern times—until now.
Although the law has existed for over two centuries, it has only been formally invoked three times in U.S. history—each during a declared war:
-
War of 1812: The U.S. government required British nationals living in the country to register with authorities and imposed restrictions on their movement.
-
World War I: President Woodrow Wilson invoked the Act to monitor and detain thousands of German, Austrian, and Ottoman nationals. Over 6,000 non-citizens were interned in camps, while nearly half a million German-born residents were forced to register as enemy aliens.
-
World War II: The Act was used to detain and deport thousands of German, Italian, and Japanese nationals. Although the widely known internment of Japanese Americans was carried out under different legal authority, many German and Italian non-citizens were detained directly under the Alien Enemies Act.
Each time the Act was invoked, it affected entire immigrant communities, many of whom had no connection to enemy military efforts but were targeted solely based on nationality. In hindsight, these actions have been criticized as overreaching, with the U.S. government later issuing formal apologies for the internments of World War II.
After decades of dormancy, the Act was invoked again in 2025 by President Donald Trump. This time, it was not used against the citizens of a country with which the U.S. was at war, but rather against Venezuelan nationals accused of being affiliated with the criminal organization Tren de Aragua.
The administration justified the use of the Act by claiming that Tren de Aragua was carrying out an “invasion” and “predatory incursion” into the U.S., invoking the exact language of the 1798 law. Under the proclamation, Venezuelan citizens in the U.S. who were suspected of being gang members could be detained and deported immediately, without going through standard immigration court procedures.
This marked a significant shift in how the Act was applied—the first time in U.S. history that it was used in a non-war context. It raised concerns that the law could be stretched beyond its intended use to justify mass deportations of specific immigrant groups under broad claims of national security threats.
The broad language of the Act means it can apply to any non-U.S. citizen from a country that the government deems hostile. Those who might be affected include:
-
Lawful Permanent Residents (Green Card Holders): Even green card holders remain nationals of their home country until they become U.S. citizens, meaning they could be targeted if their country of origin is labeled an “enemy.”
-
Visa Holders (Students, Workers, and Visitors): Those in the U.S. on temporary visas from affected nations could face sudden detainment or restrictions.
-
Asylum Seekers and Refugees: Those fleeing dangerous regimes could ironically be treated as “enemy aliens” if their home country becomes a designated threat.
-
Undocumented Immigrants from Affected Countries: While undocumented individuals can already face deportation under normal immigration law, the Alien Enemies Act bypasses legal protections that might otherwise allow them to fight removal.
While President Trump’s order excluded green card holders, the law itself does not prevent future presidents from applying it to them. This raises serious concerns about how broadly the Act could be used in future crises.
Supporters argue that the Alien Enemies Act serves national security purposes, allowing for:
-
Swift action in emergencies: If a foreign nation launches an attack, the government can immediately detain potential threats without waiting for lengthy legal proceedings.
-
Removal of hostile foreign agents or terrorists: If the government has intelligence suggesting that certain foreign nationals are engaged in espionage or sabotage, the Act provides a legal basis to detain or expel them.
-
Deterrence: Knowing that the U.S. can take immediate action against nationals from hostile countries may discourage foreign governments from engaging in aggression.
Despite these arguments, the Alien Enemies Act has been widely criticized for its broad and unchecked power, leading to serious concerns, including:
-
Guilt by Association: The Act targets individuals based solely on their nationality, not actual evidence of wrongdoing.
-
Lack of Due Process: Those detained under the Act do not have the same legal protections as other immigrants facing deportation.
-
Potential for Abuse: The law can be misused for political purposes, as seen in its recent application against Venezuelan nationals without a declared war.
-
Questionable Necessity: Existing immigration and criminal laws already allow the government to arrest and deport individuals engaged in illegal activity, making the Alien Enemies Act largely redundant.
Historically, the Act has led to mass detentions and deportations of innocent people who had no involvement in hostile actions. Given this history, civil rights advocates argue that the risks far outweigh any security benefits.
Following President Trump’s 2025 proclamation, lawsuits were quickly filed challenging the use of the Act. Advocacy groups argued that:
-
The U.S. is not at war with Venezuela, meaning the Act should not apply.
-
The term “invasion” in the law refers to military conflict, not criminal activity.
-
Immigrants are being deported without due process, violating constitutional protections.
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order halting deportations, but the administration continued to fight in court. The legal battle over the Act’s modern application is ongoing, and its outcome could set a precedent for how broadly the law can be used in the future.
At the same time, some lawmakers have pushed for repealing the Act entirely, arguing that it is outdated and contradicts modern legal standards. A bill known as the “Neighbors Not Enemies Act” has been introduced to abolish the law, but as of now, it remains on the books.
The Alien Enemies Act is a 200-year-old law with serious modern implications. While originally designed for wartime security, its recent use shows how it can be stretched far beyond its intended purpose. For immigrants, the stakes are high—because when the Act is invoked, entire groups of people can lose their rights overnight.
As legal challenges move forward, courts will determine whether the President’s broad interpretation of the law holds up. Meanwhile, immigrant communities and civil rights groups are watching closely, advocating for fair treatment and due process for those affected.
At Lahooti Law, we remain committed to informing and protecting our clients in the face of legal uncertainty. If you have concerns about how changing immigration policies might affect your status, we encourage you to seek legal guidance as soon as possible.
