The Brief

Former President Donald Trump, whose bid for the White House has been dominated by his increasingly hardline anti-immigration rhetoric, is vowing to use an obscure, centuries-old law to expedite the removal of undocumented migrants from the U.S.

“I will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to target and dismantle every migrant criminal network operating on American soil,” he said at a recent rally in California, one of several in which he has brought it up.

Trump is promising that, if reelected, he will use the act to initiate a federal effort called “Operation Aurora” — named after the Colorado town that he claims has been taken over by Venezuelan gangs, which residents and local officials dispute — to target undocumented migrant gang members for arrest and deportation.

He has also suggested that the act could be used to end sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, telling Fox News’ Harris Faulkner that “we can do things in terms of moving people out.”

The Alien Enemies Act is featured in more than just Trump’s stump speech.

It’s also name-checked in the Republican Party’s official 2024 platform, which says it will invoke the law to “remove all known or suspected gang members, drug dealers, or cartel members from the United States, ending the scourge of Illegal Alien gang violence once and for all.”

The act has gotten relatively little attention, let alone use, in the more than 200 years it’s been on the books, as Trump acknowledged.

“Those were the old days, when they had tough politicians,” he told a crowd of supporters in Arizona. “Think of that, 1798. Oh, it’s a powerful act. You couldn’t pass something like that today.”

So what exactly does the act do, and how likely is Trump to be able to use it as promised?

What’s the purpose of the Alien Enemies Act?

The Alien Enemies Act specifically allows the president to detain, relocate, or deport non-citizens from a country considered an enemy of the U.S. during wartime:

Congress, with the support of President John Adams, passed the Alien Enemies Act as part of the four Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 as the U.S. stood on the brink of war with France.

“There was a lot of fear-mongering about French supporters in the United States and about conspiracies to basically get the United States in on France's side,” explains Georgetown University Law Center professor Steve Vladeck.

The controversial group of laws severely curtailed civil liberties, including by tightening restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limiting speech critical of the government.

After President Thomas Jefferson was elected in 1800, he either repealed or allowed most of the acts to expire, except for the Alien Enemies Act, which does not have an expiration date.

It not only remained on the books but continued to expand in scope: Congress amended it in 1918 to include women.

This 1918 photograph shows "enemy aliens" being corralled by Secret Service operatives at Gloucester, N.J., on their way to internment in the South.

(

HUM Images

/

Universal Images Group via Getty Images

)

The Alien Enemies Act has been used three times in American history, all in connection with major military conflicts.

During the War of 1812, all British nationals living in the U.S. were required to report information including their age, length of time in the country, place of residence, family description and whether they had applied for naturalization.

A century later, during World War I, President Woodrow Wilson invoked it against nationals of the Central Powers: the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria.

According to the National Archives, U.S. authorities used the law to place over 6,000 “enemy aliens” — many of them Germans — in internment camps, with some remaining in detention up to two years after fighting had ended.

The U.S. Marshals Service says it registered 480,000 German “enemy aliens” and arrested 6,300 between the declaration of war in April 1917 and the armistice in November 1918.

Most recently, President Franklin Roosevelt invoked the act after the attack on Pearl Harbor, designating Japanese, German and Italian nationals as “alien enemies” during World War II.

Roosevelt's proclamation required residents from all three countries to register with the U.S. government and authorized the internment of any alien enemy “deemed potentially dangerous to the peace and security of the US.”

By the end of WWII, over 31,000 suspected enemy aliens and their families — including Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany — had been interned at camps and military facilities across the U.S., according to the National Archives. Several thousand of them were ultimately repatriated to their country of origin, either by choice or by force.

Vladeck says the Alien Enemies Act was used to detain mostly Italian and German nationals. The bulk of the more than 100,000 Japanese Americans who were placed in internment camps during the war were U.S. citizens, detained under different legal grounds.

How strong is Trump’s case?

The act hasn’t been invoked since WWII, which Vladeck says is largely because the nature of war has changed over the last eight decades.

The fine print of the act says the president can only take on this authority once Congress has declared war, and — while the U.S. has been involved in plenty of conflicts over the decades — it hasn’t done so formally since 1942.

“It hasn't been a source of contemporary controversy because we haven't had a declared war,” he explains. “And no one has tried to argue that that invasion or predatory incursion language could be used in any context other than a conventional war.”

Until Trump, that is. The former president — who has a long history of using dehumanizing language against minority groups and political opponents — has repeatedly referred to the influx of migrants to the U.S. as an “invasion” and vowed mass deportations.

But he hasn’t blamed a specific country or conflict that would fall within the scope of the 1798 act, Vladeck says, which is one of the reasons he doesn’t think Trump’s argument will succeed.

Even some anti-immigration advocates in favor of deploying the act acknowledge those key legal challenges.

Defining illegal immigration as an invasion and migrant gangs as foreign nations would be an “uphill climb in federal court,” George Fishman, former deputy general counsel at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Trump, wrote last year.

What are some possible outcomes?

Trump doesn’t need the Alien Enemies Act to go after undocumented immigrants, Vladeck says, noting that presidents already have the authority to arrest, detain and remove them.

“The issue that has hamstrung each of the last four presidents, of both parties, has not been legal authority — it’s a lack of resources,” he says. “The federal government doesn’t have the capacity to identify, track down, round up and remove every single one of the 11 million-plus undocumented immigrants in this country.”

One of the primary obstacles is a lack of funding for immigration enforcement, something that lawmakers sought to address in a bipartisan border security bill earlier this year. It would have put $20 billion toward border provisions and implemented several policy changes to adjust and expedite the asylum process.

Senate Republicans blocked the bill after pressure from Trump, which Democratic critics say he did so that he could campaign in part on fixing the chaos at the border.

“The irony that Trump is now trotting out this old, anachronistic statute to solve a problem that he could have solved much more directly and much less controversially, I think it ought not to be lost on the folks who are learning about these authorities for the first time,” Vladeck says

A 1942 poster notifies U.S. residents of Japanese, German and Italian nationality to apply at their nearest post office for a certificate of registration.

(

Getty Images

)

If Trump were reelected and proceeded to invoke these powers — which he could do unilaterally, unless a majority of the House and Senate were to block him — Vladeck thinks he would be challenged in court immediately and have a tough time defending his case.

“The sort of the notion that the courts would look kindly upon using this kind of authority where, one, he doesn't need it, and two, it would really be a stretch in what is already a pretty controversial legal power, I think is pretty far-fetched,” he says.

Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel with the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, says it’s unclear whether courts would intervene to stop the Alien Enemies Act from being used in peacetime.

“The last time the Alien Enemies Act was challenged, in Ludecke v. Watkins in 1948, the Supreme Court upheld President Harry S. Truman’s extended reliance on the law three years after the end of World War II,” she wrote in a legal analysis. “The Court reasoned that the question of when a war terminates and wartime authorities expire is too ‘political’ for judicial resolution.”

On the other hand, she says, a lot has changed since then, including contemporary understandings of equal protection and due process.

Courts and the public have rejected the 1944 Korematsu case that upheld Japanese internment. Congress provided reparations to surviving Japanese Americans and formally apologized for the use of the Alien Enemies Act during WWII. If a president invokes the act again, she says, courts might look at those legal challenges differently — “on the merits instead of categorically deferring to the president.”

But the surest way to prevent the act from being abused, Yon Ebright writes, would be for Congress to proactively repeal it.

Some Democratic lawmakers — Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii — have tried in recent years by introducing the “Neighbors Not Enemies” Act, which would repeal the Alien Enemies Act, but hasn’t gained traction.

Omar has resurfaced her calls for action in light of Trump’s recent comments, writing on X that “it’s past time we put this xenophobic law in the dustbin of history where it belongs.”

If voters were confused about who to support in California’s wide-open race for governor, Rep. Eric Swalwell’s exit amid allegations of sexual assault and misconduct may leave them as mystified as ever.

Swalwell suspended his campaign Sunday evening and resigned from Congress Monday afternoon — a swift fall from power for one of the state’s leading candidates for governor.

He said he would “fight the serious, false allegation made against me. However, I must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make.”

In theory, one fewer Democratic candidate in the race should help liberal voters consolidate the field. But in a race that was already anyone’s to win, Swalwell’s exit has only “caused more confusion,” said political strategist Marva Diaz, who primarily works with Democrats but is not involved in any gubernatorial campaign.

“I’ve never seen something so in flux while ballots are about to drop,” she said.

Where things stand

Because Swalwell dropped out after a statutory deadline to formally withdraw from an election, his name will still appear on the June 2 primary election ballot. That makes it possible he’ll still get some votes, but his rivals are already seeking to scoop up as many of his supporters as possible.

Both billionaire climate advocate Tom Steyer and law professor and former Rep. Katie Porter circulated polls indicating they could both pick up a sizable portion of Swalwell’s potential voters. Pollsters with the Public Policy Institute of California and UC Berkeley both agreed Steyer and Porter were the most likely to benefit from prior Swalwell supporters.

But they may not be the only ones, and it’s not clear that either one of them will immediately surge into the lead. An independent campaign committee supporting San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan pulled in $12 million million in new and previously committed contributions from wealthy donors since Friday, committee spokesperson Matt Rodriguez said, indicating his backers see an opening.

They’re launching $4.5 million worth of TV and digital ads Tuesday. Mahan is one of the race’s lower-polling candidates, getting 3% of likely voters’ support in a poll commissioned last week by the state Democratic Party.

Until the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN last Friday published stories with explosive sexual misconduct allegations from four women, including a former staff member, Swalwell had consistently polled ahead of most other Democrats in the race for governor. He was often in a three-way tie for lead Democrat alongside Porter and Steyer, with each of them getting between 10% and 15% of voters polled, tied with or trailing the two leading Republicans, Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco.

What happens to his endorsments?

And though Swalwell counted among his supporters a sizable share of the Democratic establishment — his colleagues in Congress, major labor unions and other Sacramento interest groups — it was by no means a consensus. Now, after those groups have scrambled through emergency weekend meetings to pull their endorsements, they’ll have to slog through their internal procedures if they want to back another candidate for governor.

That gives voters fewer pointers on which candidate to back, Diaz said. Some organizations, she added, may be hesitant to endorse another candidate out of concern they, too, could have damaging backgrounds.

“Most people look to labor for guidance, especially on the Democratic side,” Diaz said. “When labor organizations are not working in tandem, it causes a lot of confusion.”

Swalwell was one of four Democrats the California Labor Federation jointly endorsed for governor, along with Porter, Steyer and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The federation, which could not reach consensus on any individual candidate, likely won’t be revisiting its other endorsements with Swalwell gone, president Lorena Gonzalez said.

But the Service Employees International Union, California Teachers Association and other heavyweights in Democratic politics which had endorsed Swalwell and then withdrew their support may not have time to go back to the drawing board to pick a new candidate. The teachers’ union’s endorsement process, for example, required a vote among hundreds of members from across the state; the union’s next such meeting isn’t scheduled until after the June 2 primary.

Representatives of both unions said they did not have any campaign updates Monday. A spokesperson for the California Professional Firefighters, another major Swalwell supporter, did not respond to inquiries.

Where his backers may throw their support

The effects of Swalwell’s exit on public polling of the race may not be seen for weeks. Donors often look to such measures of a candidate’s performance to decide who to back.

In the last survey UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies conducted of the governor’s race, in March, Swalwell’s supporters leaned more liberal and progressive, said institute co-director Eric Schickler. Swalwell also did better than other candidates among older voters and white voters.

Those voters cut a similar profile to Porter’s supporters, Schickler said, lending credence to the idea that his supporters would start following her.

“On the other hand, Porter has had trouble, for a visible politician, has had trouble winning over a lot of Democratic establishment figures in her own right,” he said. “If you look at the support, it’s a little more similar, but not so striking to say these supporters automatically go there.”

What about Swalwell's seat in Congress?

As for Swalwell’s congressional seat, it’s not clear when he’s stepping down. But he said he would work with his congressional staff to ensure they are able to meet the needs of his San Francisco East Bay district, where he was first elected in 2013.

Swalwell’s resignation Monday leaves the call for a special election to finish his term entirely at Newsom’s discretion, since the candidate filing deadline for the June primary has passed, according to the state election code.

Newsom’s office would not say Monday whether the governor will do so.

But if he calls for the election, the earliest date it could be held would be in mid-August, since state law requires it to take place between 126 and 140 days after the proclamation. If Newsom declines to call a special election, Swalwell’s seat will remain vacant until mid-January 2027, dealing a blow to the U.S. House Democrats who are already outnumbered by the Republican majority.

Because Swalwell opted to run for governor instead of retaining his seat in Congress, there are already seven candidates in the running to replace Swalwell in the 14th Congressional District.

CalMatters’ Yue Stella Yu contributed to this story.

New data from the Port of L.A. for March released on Monday shows a 7% increase in exports compared to the same month last year, with 132,000 containers leaving the port despite the turmoil in the Middle East.

“That's the highest output number for the export containers that we've seen in nearly two years,” Gene Seroka, the executive director of the Port of L.A. “While encouraging, we have much more work to do to develop a consistent upward trend."

The overall percentage change in container traffic in and out of the port in March is in the single digits, a 3% drop compared to the same month last year. Seroka said that’s because uncertainty over tariffs a year ago led companies to scramble to get their products through ports.

The longstanding trade deficit continues

However, while there’s an upward trend in exports, the data confirms something that’s been true for years: the U.S. is in a trade deficit. In March, overseas companies sent about three times more goods to consumers here than were sent out of the port by American companies. Last month, the port processed over 380,000 incoming containers, mostly from China, Vietnam and Japan.

That trans-Pacific commerce is insulating the Port of L.A. container volume from one of the most consequential geopolitical conflicts in recent memory — the war with Iran.

“So far, it's a concern, but it's not a worry,” Seroka said.

An electric top handler moves cargo off of semi-trucks at the Port of Los Angeles.

(

Joel Angel Juarez

/

CalMatters

)

Foreign shipping companies that do business with the Port of L.A., as well as ports in the Middle East, are doing what they can to protect their trade with the U.S., Seroka said.

“The transpacific business is the most lucrative of any east west [trade] for the service providers and shipping lines… they'll go to great lengths to make sure those supply chains remain intact,” he said.

The port is the busiest in the Western hemisphere, generating more than $300 billion in trade last year, making it an important regional and national economic engine.

But the war is affecting shipping companies and consumers in other ways. The price of gasoline has gone up, as well as cargo ship fuel, which will likely be passed on to consumers.

The directors of a beloved Los Angeles puppetry institution said Monday their theater is here to stay now that they’ve worked out a plan to buy their building.

The Bob Baker Marionette Theater has been delighting L.A. kids — and kids at heart — since 1963. But in 2019, a landlord’s redevelopment plans forced the theater to move from its original location near downtown L.A. to its current venue in Highland Park.

Co-executive director Mary Fagot said discussions to purchase the building began in 2024. Those talks have culminated in a deal to buy the building for $5 million from its owner, Capstone Equities.

Once the sale is complete, Bob Baker will be able to redirect rent money to new programming, field trips and special events, Fagot said.

“Buying the building means that we won't be subject to rent increases or even another displacement in the future,” she said. “We'll be able to go on presenting our special brand of magic, creativity and imagination, here in this location, forever.”

How puppetry lovers can help secure the deal

The theater said it has already raised $4.5 million for the purchase from organizations such as the Perenchio Foundation, the Kohl Family Foundation and the Ahmanson Foundation, as well as philanthropists and celebrities, including Wallis Annenberg, Jack Black and Tanya Haden.

Now the theater is asking the public for help raising the last $500,000, so it can close the deal without carrying debt into the future.

The news comes as new audiences have been getting to see White Cat, Skateboarding Clown, Gorgeous and all of the theater’s other distinctive puppets in action.

Bob Baker puppeteers brought their talents to Coachella last weekend. They’ll be there again this weekend, adding a dash of whimsy to a lineup that includes headliners Sabrina Carpenter, Justin Bieber and Karol G.

What’s next?

The theater is also prepping to debut its first new show in 40 years, an hour-long train-themed adventure called Choo Choo Revue.

Fagot said L.A. families are always bringing new generations of kids to their regular shows in Highland Park.

“To be able to say with certainty that this theater will be here for my kids and my kids' kids, and really for the cultural landscape of Los Angeles for generations to come — it feels like a really big deal, not just for us, but for L.A.,” Fagot said.