The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 278, March 21, 2025

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we look into the mass deportations carried out in defiance of a court order blocking them, provide analysis on how U.S. airstrikes in Yemen risk further escalations in the Middle East, and examine Israel shattering hopes of the ceasefire deal resuming with its heinous assault on Gaza.

Editor: Bassam Tarbush

Mass Deportations Carried Out in Defiance of a Court Order Blocking Them

Over the past week, President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – an 18th century wartime law – and carried out the deportation of hundreds with alleged gang ties, despite a federal judge’s court order temporarily blocking the expulsion and demanding that any airborne planes carrying the migrants be returned to the United States. The administration’s decision to defy the judicial court order has rightfully elicited controversy, as has the use of the law outside of a time of war. Legal experts point out that federal courts have jurisdiction over the president and thus, the manner in which the deportations have been implemented denies the right to due process and is a clear overreach of power by the Trump administration. The case also raises serious constitutional concerns since under the United States’ system of checks and balances, government agencies are expected to comply with a federal judge’s ruling. As a result, many seem to acknowledge and anticipate that The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) could ultimately determine whether or not the White House has the far-reaching power that it claims regarding mass deportations.

The rarely-applied wartime law that the Trump administration has tried to use as a means for justifying its recent mass deportation has only been invoked three times in the entire history of the United States, with all of these involving official congressional declarations of war during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. For this reason, many observers contend that Trump’s decision to do so in the absence of any such formal proclamation amounts to a troubling and unlawful abuse of the executive branch of government’s power. As one nonpartisan law and policy institute analyst outlined, “The president’s invocation of a wartime authority for peacetime immigration enforcement is a manifest abuse and injustice [and] it is shameful to try to revive this outdated and discriminatory law to target immigrants in modern-day America.” From a purely practical perspective as well, others argue that the law cannot be used against nationals of a country with whom the United States is not at war with. On that note, federal judge James Boasberg appeared to concur with this notion in his court order, whereby he ruled that the terms “invasion” and “predatory incursion” stated in the law relate to hostile acts perpetrated by adversarial nations during a time of war. Some anti-immigration forces have urged for a “non-literal reading” of the “invasion” and “predatory incursion” parts of the law, however, if dangerously interpreted as such, it serves as an abuse of power as it bypasses conventional immigration laws and due process in regular times of peace. Perhaps one of the most alarming elements surrounding the Trump administration’s recent action as well is that if it withstands a potential legal challenge, the move could open the door for other groups of migrants to be targeted in a way which circumvents normal due process and the rule of law.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other rights groups have sought to highlight why the court order defiance is such an unsettling development. ACLU officials have remarked that “There is no foreign military action to justify President Trump’s intended invocation of this act, making his actions not only unlawful but an outright assault on fundamental rights. This is yet another dangerous overreach by the administration, designed to support an unchecked mass deportation program, all while bypassing the necessary judicial review.” The current administration’s refusal to abide by the court order runs counter to the system of checks and balances among the three branches of government – a cornerstone of American democracy which was of course designed to grant each with specific roles and responsibilities in order to ensure a balance of power and prevent any one branch from overstepping its authority. On top of failing to uphold some of the most basic principles that define the United States system of governance, the dubious behavior of immigration agents under the Trump administration in the case of the recent defiant deportations is far from an isolated incident. Just during the past two weeks alone, immigration enforcement officers have unconstitutionally detained a former Columbia University graduate student with a green card, a Lebanese doctor at Brown University with a valid visa (who also had a court order in place blocking her immediate removal), two German tourists, and multiple immigrants who are either married to U.S. citizens or have long lived in the United States.

It is important to note that even with the concerns of executive overreach under Trump, previous presidents have also deported millions of immigrants. In fact, the numbers deported by Biden exceed those of Trump. Recently uncovered data found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents actually deported fewer immigrants back in February of this year than they did under the Biden administration during the same month a year ago. According to the data, ICE deported around 11,000 migrants last month – the first full month Trump was in office – compared to just over 12,000 in February of 2024. This should be taken in its proper context though, as one of the major reasons for the higher numbers under the Biden administration was the increased traffic from attempted border crossings in that month of 2024, compared to in 2025. Looking at the respective February data for both presidents, Biden did also issue slightly more removal flights than Trump, at 137 to 128.

There are also indications that President Trump plans to rewrite the Immigration and Nationality Act, which according to the Cato Institute, could lead to the reinstatement of “a system of nationality-based discrimination that Congress first adopted in 1924 before repealing it in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.” Trump signed an executive order on January 20th to “identify countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals.” This new immigration ban would have a hierarchy system of nations in which he considers citizens from them on a green, yellow, orange, and red color classification. The “green” nationalities would be allowed, the “red” nationalities would be subject to a total ban, “orange” nationalities to a partial ban, and “yellow” nationalities would be subject to new requirements – which could escalate into “red” or “orange” classifications if their governments fail to adopt changes within 60 days.

The evident tensions between the White House and the judiciary this week have continued in the preceding days. Following the Trump administration’s defiance of his court order, Federal Judge Boasberg demanded that the Department of Justice (DOJ) answer questions in order to provide more details regarding the controversial deportations carried out. Boasberg has called for government lawyers to divulge the reasoning behind why his court order was not adhered to and answer questions about its actions. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has sent a letter urging for the removal of Boasberg from the case, prompting a rare statement from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rebuking the call to impeach the judge as an inappropriate response to disagreement over a judicial decision.

U.S. Airstrikes in Yemen Risk Further Escalations in the Middle East

The United States has launched a fresh wave of airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen under the new Trump administration, citing the group’s attacks on shipping in the Red Sea as the proclaimed reason behind them. Regional experts have argued that the strikes are unlikely to deter the Houthis, and instead, the anticipated tit-for-tat retaliations elicit concern regarding possible further escalations in the Middle East. The U.S. airstrikes come after the Houthis stated that they would resume their Red Sea shipping attacks in response to Israel blocking aid from entering into Gaza. During the preceding months when the Gaza ceasefire agreement was in effect, the Houthis had halted their Red Sea attacks. The risk of the situation devolving even more is particularly worrying now in light of Israel’s egregious recent assault on the Palestinian enclave. Following Israel’s shattering of the nearly two-month ceasefire deal this week – which had been in limbo since March 1st when the six-week-long first phase expired without proceeding to the agreed-upon second phase – the Houthis have also resumed their missile attacks against Israel.

The United States’ involvement threatens to heighten tensions and result in additional reprisal attacks that could spiral into wider-scale conflict. This is especially the case given that the American airstrikes are taking place during a time of great uncertainty and turmoil in the region. Between Israel’s renewed hostilities in Gaza, regime change in Syria, and increased U.S. pressure on Iran, there are a lot of moving pieces that may lead to further escalations in violence stemming from expanded U.S. involvement. It is for this reason that Former President Biden faced bipartisan criticism after his administration launched attacks against the Houthis back in early 2024. Elected officials such as U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), and others all spoke out against Biden’s decision to initiate attacks in Yemen. Now, with Trump doing the same, the response from some Republicans has been more muted, however, there have been notable GOP Congressmembers that have criticized Trump’s latest actions in Yemen. U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) pointed out that the United States’ military activity there only serves to benefit other countries and non-American corporations – far from Trump’s espoused “America First” policy that should instead be focused on actions which are favorable to the U.S. and do not risk our entanglement in foreign conflicts. U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) also expressed opposition to potential U.S. involvement in another Middle East conflict and the idea of the United States going to war on behalf of other countries.

President Trump has spent a large portion of his 2024 election campaign and first two months in office posturing about pulling out of all global conflicts – often even to the possibility of alienating historic U.S. allies like the European Union (EU). He has contended that the United States puts far more money and resources into the Ukraine War than the EU themselves, and that he would not stand for it anymore. His administration’s actions in Yemen however run counter to this claimed ideology, and on the contrary, risk embroiling the United States further in the Middle East and serve no benefit to our national interests. The lack of consistency is evident. On the one hand, Trump administration officials discuss the need for Europe to shoulder more of the burden for Ukraine’s security, but when it comes to the Middle East, seem perfectly content engaging in direct and dangerous military activity on behalf of Israel – which has consistently shown itself to be a bellicose actor in the region keen on dragging the United States into its hostilities and conflicts. If the Trump administration continues to “do Israel’s bidding,” the likelihood of a larger-scale war that pulls in other regional entities like Iran in a more direct confrontation will only increase.

One of Trump’s purported reasons behind initiating attacks against the Houthis is to restore the United States’ navigational freedom. However, despite the actions of the Houthis in the Red Sea, American shipping has remained largely unaffected, as trade with Europe and Asia is carried through the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Instead, it is some of the European and Asian supply chains that have mostly seen disruptions, and they have opted for the longer but safer route going around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa. If the Houthis’ attacks were fended off, there would certainly be savings in the global supply chain for Europe and Asia, but almost none of those savings would be felt by the United States, making Trump’s recent moves so confounding if he indeed wants to champion a true “America First” approach to foreign policy. Trump likes to stress his belief that the rest of the world is taking advantage of the United States and that we need to stop embroiling ourselves in the affairs of other nations, but his administration’s actions in Yemen are not aligned with this alleged philosophy.

Israel Shatters Hopes of the Ceasefire Deal Resuming with Its Heinous Assault on Gaza

Israel resumed its indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza this week, killing more than 400 people in overnight attacks on Tuesday alone – including hundreds of children. The reprehensible renewed Israeli assault was initiated in consultation with the Trump administration, and has upended the Gaza ceasefire deal and shattered the hopes of progressing into its second phase. While movement to the second phase of the agreement was meant to take place back on March 1st and would have paved the way for an end to the war and the release of all remaining hostages still being held in Gaza, Israel has made it clear that it has no intent on doing so. For their part, Hamas has contended that the deal should continue to stage two – as initially agreed upon when the deal was implemented in mid-January. Journalists have documented how the latest Israeli airstrikes have been launched against residential buildings and makeshift schools where civilians are taking shelter, adding to the outrage among rights groups and human rights activists. The Hostages and Missing Persons Families Forum which was established by the families of the captives following the October 7th Hamas attack also expressed their shock and anger regarding the Israeli government’s deliberate disruption of the ceasefire deal process.

For many analysts, there are undoubtedly political factors at play when it comes to why Israel has chosen to resume its deplorable hostilities in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s actions have been criticized as a blatant effort to ensure his political survival. As has been pointed out, if the Netanyahu government genuinely prioritized bringing the remaining hostages back above all other considerations, then there would have been agreement on initiating the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal which was designed and agreed upon to do just that. However, instead, Netanyahu understands that ending the war will result in the collapse of his coalition government and thus leave him exposed to finally face the serious criminal charges that await him, both domestically and internationally. As such, the resumption of violence in Gaza has become a political tool to try and maintain the fragile coalition government that would otherwise fall apart if the Gaza War is ended. Extremist far-right ministers like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir have threatened to derail the coalition government if the war does not continue, and it is apparent that Netanyahu is willing to do anything to retain power at all costs.

From the very beginning of the ceasefire deal’s implementation in mid-January, Israeli officials had a noncommittal attitude towards the agreement’s second phase and an ultimate permanent cessation of hostilities. This is precisely why there was so much doubt regarding the likelihood of the deal moving beyond the first phase. Talks regarding negotiating the start of the second phase were continuously delayed and unproductive. As the first phase reached its conclusion in early March, Israel refused to initiate stage two and instead tried to propose an extension of the first phase – which was understandably rejected because it would not have included an Israeli commitment to withdraw all of its forces from Gaza and end the war.

Following Israel’s renewed assault on Gaza earlier this week, protestors have taken to the streets to condemn the Netanyahu government and its actions. Thousands have called out Netanyahu for prioritizing his own political survival over the return of hostages and an end to the devastating violence. Anti-war demonstrations have also emerged in cities across the United States in opposition to the Trump administration’s endorsement of the Israeli government’s latest military actions. Israeli forces have resumed ground operations in Gaza during the preceding days, prompting Hamas to announce the firing of rockets at Tel Aviv for the first time in months, as observers fear the threat of continued escalations moving forward.