Special Poll
President Donald Trump raised eyebrows on Friday when he distanced himself from the order invoking the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants allegedly tied to the Tren de Aragua gang. When asked by reporters whether he personally signed the controversial proclamation, Trump replied, “We want to get criminals out of our country number one. I don’t know when it was signed, because I didn’t sign it. Other people handled it.”
His comments created immediate confusion, as a four-page proclamation filed in the Federal Register clearly appears to bear his signature. The legal document, which authorizes the use of the 1798 law to carry out deportations, has already become the focus of legal challenges.
Trump went on to praise members of his administration who have supported the enforcement move, citing the work of senior officials who have been actively involved in implementing it. While he mentioned the Secretary of State in general terms, it’s believed that other top figures like border czar Tom Homan and Attorney General Pam Bondi were heavily involved in coordinating the action.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to block the administration’s use of the law, questioned the timing of the proclamation. During a hearing, Boasberg pointed out that the order appeared to have been signed either late Friday night or early Saturday morning—suggesting it was done in haste to avoid a court injunction. “It seems to me the only reason to do that is you know it’s a problem and you want to get them out of the country before a suit is filed,” Boasberg said.
With Trump now saying he didn’t sign the order himself, it has sparked new questions over who authorized the deportation policy and whether the signature on the document was legitimate. The confusion has fueled speculation about internal procedures at the White House and whether someone within the administration may have signed on his behalf—or worse, without his full knowledge.
The use of the Alien Enemies Act has been controversial, not just for its historical context, but also for its application in modern immigration enforcement. Legal experts are now questioning whether the law was invoked properly and whether the president’s recent comments undermine the legality of the entire process.
As the administration defends its position in court, the lingering uncertainty over who actually signed the proclamation could become a key point in ongoing legal and political debates. Whether it was a bureaucratic misstep or something more serious, the issue is now drawing scrutiny from both legal analysts and political opponents.