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.”

This story was originally published by Boyle Heights Beat on Nov. 25.

With the holiday season underway, organizations across Boyle Heights and East LA are seeking volunteers to help distribute food, assemble bicycles, sort toys and sponsor families in need.

If you’re looking to donate, volunteer or find ways to give back, we’ve rounded up a list to help you get started.

Build bicycles and organize donations at a toy giveaway

The Weingart East LA YMCA is hosting its 19th Annual Toy Giveaway on Dec. 18, and volunteers are needed to help prepare toys and provide support. Before the event, volunteers can help by assembling bicycles and sorting and organizing toys on Dec. 17 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Volunteers are also needed to assist on event day from 3:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Volunteer at local food distributions

The Weingart East LA YMCA hosts a food distribution every Monday and Wednesday to ensure families have access to nutritious meals. Volunteers are needed for each food distribution from 8:45 a.m. to noon.

Drop off toys at First Street businesses

LAFC’s Expo Originals supporters group is collecting new, unwrapped toys and Venmo donations ahead of its annual community toy drive Dec. 14. Venmo contributions will go toward toy purchases, and the last day to donate is Dec. 6. Toys can be dropped off in person at the locations below until Dec. 13.

Donate a new jacket at a homeless shelter

Proyecto Pastoral is collecting new jackets to keep its participants at the Guadalupe Homeless Shelter warm.

Sponsor a family, child or classroom ahead of the holidays

Proyecto Pastoral has many opportunities for the community to give back during its Holiday Drive this year. Those interested in fulfilling holiday wishes for a family, child or classroom have until Dec. 1 to register. Proyecto Pastoral will pair sponsors with community members in need to fulfill items from their wish list.

Individual toys also can be dropped off at Proyecto Pastoral’s office. The toys will be distributed to children who participate in Proyecto Pastoral’s youth programs at their end-of-year celebrations.

Greystar, which manages hundreds of properties in California, has agreed to pay $7 million to settle a lawsuit alleging the company and other landlords used a price scheme to raise rents artificially high.

In January, Greystar was named as a defendant in an antitrust lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the U.S. Department of Justice and several other states against software company RealPage, which officials say uses algorithmic models to recommend price increases to subscribers.

Bonta alleges Greystar used RealPage’s system to coordinate rental prices with other landlords by illegally sharing and gathering confidential information. According to his office, RealPage’s “price alignment scheme” affected rentals across the country, especially in multifamily buildings in Southern California, including in Los Angeles, Orange County and San Bernardino.

"Whether it's through smoke-filled backroom deals or through an algorithm on your computer screen, colluding to drive up prices is illegal,” Bonta said in a statement. “Companies that intentionally fuel this unaffordability by raising prices to line their own pockets can be sure I will use the full force of my office to hold them accountable.”

Details on the settlement

Greystar is the largest landlord in the U.S., according to the Department of Justice, managing nearly 950,000 rental units across the country. In California, the company manages about 333 multifamily rental properties that use RealPage’s pricing software, according to Bonta’s office.

Bonta announced last week that as part of the settlement, Greystar has agreed to stop using software that uses competitively sensitive information to set rent prices, including from RealPage.

The company also has agreed to cooperate in the federal prosecution of RealPage and the other landlords named as defendants, such as Camden and Willow Bridge.

Greystar said in a statement to LAist that it’s “pleased this matter is resolved” and the company “remain[s] focused on serving our residents and clients.”

Settlement with RealPage

The U.S. Justice Department’s Antitrust Division filed a proposed settlement with RealPage on Monday to resolve its claims against the company.

If the settlement is approved by the court, RealPage would be required to stop using competitors’ private, sensitive information to set rental prices and remove or redesign features in its software that limited price drops or aligned prices between competitors, according to the Justice Department.

RealPage also would be required to cooperate in the lawsuit against property management companies that have used its software and agree to a court-appointed monitor to make sure it complies with the proposed settlement.

Dirk Wakeham, president and CEO of RealPage, said in a statement Monday that the proposed resolution marks an important milestone for the company and its customers.

"We are pleased to have reached this agreement with the DOJ, which brings the clarity and stability we have long sought and allows us to move forward with a continued focus on innovation and the shared goal of better outcomes for both housing providers and renters,” Wakeham said.

RealPage denies any wrongdoing, attorney Stephen Weissman said in a statement.

Newport Beach voters will decide if they want to replace a state-approved housing plan with one that allows for far fewer new homes in 2026.

Proponents of the plan, called the Responsible Housing Initiative, say the current plan will make the city overcrowded and negatively affect quality of life.

“This isn’t downtown Los Angeles,” said Charles Klobe, president of Still Protecting Our Newport, which backs the Responsible Housing Initiative.

Last week, city leaders voted to put the initiative in front of voters after the Newport Beach Stewardship Association submitted the Responsible Housing Initiative petition with more than 8,000 signatures. The initiative rejects the city’s current housing plan and instead proposes an amendment to the general plan to facilitate the development of 2,900 homes exclusively for extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households.

The city’s current housing plan, which has the backing of the state, allows for more than 8,000 homes, including the required affordable housing units.

“ We're against the city building more market rate than the state required. We believe it's a giveaway to developers who will fund re-election campaigns of the council,” Klobe said.

What does California law require?

California’s Housing Element Law sets housing targets for local governments to meet, including for affordable units. It allows the state to intervene every eight years to let cities know how much housing they must plan for. The law also requires cities to put together a housing element showcasing how they will achieve the state’s plan. The state then approves of the element or sends it back to cities to reconfigure according to the requirements.

According to California law, Newport Beach needs to build 4,845 new units — 3,436 of which must be affordable for very low-, low- and moderate-income households. According to the city, Newport Beach can’t just plan for affordable housing units “because that would assume all future projects would be 100% affordable, which is not realistic based on previous development experiences.” And so, the city’s rezone plans include more than 8,000 units.

Councilmember Robyn Grant said during the council meeting that she’s not in favor of the state mandate. But, she added, “After extensive legal analysis and public outreach and workshops and hearings and meetings and more meetings, this council approved an updated general plan to bring Newport Beach into compliance and avoid serious penalties, including the loss of local land use control."

Newport Beach did appeal the state’s housing mandates on the grounds that it did not take into account how some of the city’s coastal lands are protected from urban development, but the appeal was rejected.

To learn more about how Newport Beach arrived at its state-approved housing plan, click here.

What is the Responsible Housing Initiative proposing?

The Responsible Housing Initiative counts the number of housing units already in development and proposes an additional 2,900 affordable housing units to meet the state mandate.

Klobe said they believe the initiative will receive state backing because “they claim to want affordable housing and our initiative requires it.”

Supporters of the measure contend the city’s current plan will increase the population, result in excessive traffic and disrupt the quality of life. They also sued Newport Beach for not first going to voters, but they failed in court.

To learn more about the Responsible Housing Initiative, click here.

What’s next

Voters will have a chance to weigh in on the Responsible Housing Initiative in November 2026.