Obama-Appointed Judge Who Trump Called a "Radical Left Lunatic" Now Overseeing Ilhan Omar Warrant Fight and Other High-Profile Cases

If one federal judge has turned up with striking regularity in the Trump administration’s legal disputes, it is Obama appointee James Boasberg. The jurist President Trump has called a "Radical left lunatic" is now handling yet another high-stakes matter, this time the fight over the search warrant executed at the Washington, D.C., home of Rep. Ilhan Nur Said Elmi (also known as Ilhan Omar).

Former DOJ prosecutor Jim Trusty joined 'America's Newsroom' to examine the federal raid on Elmi’s residence by Homeland Security Investigations and the immigration charges that may follow. The proceedings around the congresswoman have also spotlighted a broader puzzle: how judges are actually assigned to politically sensitive cases, and why Boasberg keeps landing in the middle of them.

The latest dispute arose when media outlets challenged the Justice Department in an effort to unseal the warrant tied to two federal investigations of the Minnesota Democrat. The matter went to Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

"Judge James Boasberg is now involved with the Ilhan Omar case," Steve Ferguson, a self-described business owner with more than 250,000 followers on X, wrote. "Is everything rigged?"

The pattern invites the question.

It is a fair one to raise, given Boasberg’s expanding docket of prominent clashes with the administration. The formal answer points to an assignment system that includes notable exceptions.

Under the rules of the federal court in Washington, D.C., cases are generally assigned randomly through an electronic system managed by the clerk’s office under the Calendar and Case Management Committee. That committee consists of three to five judges appointed by the chief justice.

Not every case follows the same route. Criminal grand jury matters, for example, are assigned to and overseen by the chief judge, a post Boasberg currently holds. That makes his role in the dispute over unsealing Omar’s search warrant "not a surprise" to Eric Wessan, Iowa’s solicitor general.

Wessan nonetheless sees reason to ask whether the system is functioning as described.

"But there are a lot of cases that seem to be going to judges maybe based on those cases having similarities which is not what the local rules say," Wessan told Fox News Digital.

When cases must be reassigned, the Calendar and Case Management Committee determines the process. Procedures exist, yet critics observe that the public has little visibility into how decisions are reached.

Wessan suggested that concerns about assignments are legitimate, particularly in light of the number of prominent cases challenging the Trump administration that have reached Boasberg’s docket.

"If one is just following anecdotally, there does seem to be a lot of high-profile cases in front of judges that seem to be expressing unusual amounts of frustration or disagreement with the administration," Wessan said, urging greater transparency in how case assignments are made.

Omar’s search warrant is not the only Trump administration matter before Boasberg.

The judge is also overseeing California’s lawsuit against the administration concerning voter registration rolls. On Friday he ordered the administration to provide the state with the names and supporting information for roughly 20,000 individuals the Justice Department claims are noncitizens listed on California’s voter rolls by the end of the day.

Boasberg drew national attention in March 2025 when he ordered the Trump administration to turn around deportation flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. The administration contested the order, arguing that the Alien Enemies Act supplied legal authority for the removals.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court, which vacated Boasberg’s temporary restraining order blocking the flights after finding that the case had been brought in the wrong jurisdiction.

That same month Boasberg took up another administration controversy involving Signal messages. Senior officials had discussed plans for a military strike in Yemen in a group chat that accidentally included Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg. Boasberg then ordered the administration to preserve the messages.

The accumulation of these matters drew the attention of congressional Republicans. In May 2025, Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Chip Roy, R-Texas, sent a letter to the court clerk seeking greater clarity about the judicial assignment process.

The lawmakers questioned whether assignments were genuinely random, as the court’s rules indicate.

"The Committee cannot independently verify the randomness of case assignments because the composition of assignment decks is kept secrets," the lawmakers wrote.

"We must understand the nature of the case assignment process in the District Court, which is considering a number of cases challenging the Trump Administration’s policy decisions, to consider and develop appropriate legislation," the lawmakers wrote.

Meanwhile, Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., concluded that inquiries alone were insufficient. In July he introduced legislation requiring federal district courts to assign cases randomly, without exceptions. He named it the Boasberg Act.

The bill remains stalled in committee, perhaps pending an explanation from a judge as to why the change is unnecessary.

"Judge Boasberg is the poster child for a rogue judge and exposed serious loopholes in our judicial system. Randomly assigning cases among judges ensures the American people can have confidence in the impartiality of our courts," Schmitt said in a statement.

Under the D.C. court’s rules, the chief justice does not have authority to reassign cases. That responsibility belongs to the Calendar and Case Management Committee. Although the court must notify the judges and attorneys involved when a reassignment occurs, it is not required to explain the reason publicly.

Wessan identifies that lack of transparency as the central problem.

"The rules shouldn’t say one thing if it’s not true. But if it is true, they could just say so. I think the issue is with the exceptions—what happens in those exceptional cases and how often do they occur?" Wessan said.

He added that the volume of controversial episodes in the district court makes greater disclosure particularly important.

"Given the frequency of the concerning episodes in the district court, erring on the side of transparency is probably prudent to the extent that there are exceptions to the normal random-assignment system," Wessan said.

Americans are entitled to expect that federal judges apply the law impartially, regardless of which party holds the presidency. Random assignment is supposed to support that result. When exceptions exist, the public deserves to know how they operate and how frequently they are used.

Confidence in the courts should not rest on whether a case happens to reach a judge who already appears engaged in an extended disagreement with the administration whose policies are under challenge.

I hope you will take the time to click on any of the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to simply look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Ted Cruz's Impeachment Wish Comes True: Rep. Brandon Gill Drops the Hammer on Judge Boasberg, the Deep State's Favorite Gavel-Wielding Enforcer

Oh, the sweet sound of accountability echoing through the marble halls of Congress, like a liberal's safe space suddenly discovering the concept of consequences. Judge James Boasberg, that judicial snowflake who's been melting under scrutiny, is now officially on thin ice thicker than a Biden family business deal. As my sharp-eyed colleague Katie Jerkovich laid out last Friday, Republican Rep. Byron Donalds (FL-19) spilled the beans on Fox News' The Ingraham Angle, hinting that his Texas colleague, Rep. Brandon Gill (TX-26) was gearing up to serve Judge Boasberg a piping hot platter of impeachment articles. 

The reason for the impeachment is due to Boasberg playing activist ringmaster in the circus that was the Trump probe, green-lighting subpoenas that snagged phone records from nine U.S. Senators like they were low-hanging fruit of a loom. And leading the charge was none other than Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), one of the subpoenaed senators, who'd been hollering for Boasberg's robe to get yanked faster than Adam Schiff can spout a lie.

Well, wishes do come true when you're not wishing on a star but on a filibuster. The House finally delivered the goods on Tuesday, with Gill introducing the Articles of Impeachment against Boasberg. 

"I just filed Articles of Impeachment against radical activist Judge James Boasberg," Gill announced with hidden glee.

"Judge Boasberg abused his power by weaponizing the judiciary against critics of the Biden Administration. As part of the Arctic Frost Investigation, Judge Boasberg signed off on frivolous nondisclosure orders to conceal the fact that sitting US Senators were being surveilled.

"Not only was this action egregiously improper; it was a gross violation of the separation of powers.

"Judge Boasberg is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, is unfit for office, and should be impeached."

In a follow-up chat that could double as a masterclass in calling out judicial malpractice, Gill didn't mince words: Boasberg had "compromised the impartiality of the judiciary." Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX), is formally introducing impeachment articles against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Tuesday for his role in the "Arctic Frost" probe.

Republican allies of President Donald Trump have been criticizing Boasberg after news broke that he was the judge who signed off on subpoenas and other measures in former Special Counsel Jack Smith's probe.

"Chief Judge Boasberg has compromised the impartiality of the judiciary and created a constitutional crisis. He is shamelessly weaponizing his power against his political opponents, including Republican members of Congress who are faithfully serving the American people within their jurisdiction," Gill told Fox News Digital.

"Judge Boasberg was an accomplice in the egregious Arctic Frost scandal where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators. His lack of integrity makes him clearly unfit for the gavel. I am proud to once again introduce articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg to hold him accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors."

It's not just Lone Star firebrands lighting this fuse. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), whose phone records got the full Snowden treatment in this mess, teamed up with Republican House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (OH-4) on Fox Business' Larry Kudlow show. She confirmed she had tapped Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to drag Boasberg before the committee for a testify-or-fry session. Because nothing says "transparency" like hauling a judge in to explain why he thought spying on senators was just another Tuesday.

Gill's resolution lays it out in black-and-white legalese that's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to a piñata: one count of abuse of power, per the text we scooped first at Fox News Digital. "Ignoring his responsibility to wield the power of his office in a constitutional manner, Chief Judge Boasberg granted Special Counsel John L. Smith authorization to issue frivolous nondisclosure orders in furtherance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation project codenamed ARCTIC FROST," the text said.

"These nondisclosure orders covered Members of Congress who were acting in accord with their legislative duties and privileges guaranteed by Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution."

Look, impeaching federal judges isn't like giving out a traffic ticket. It's rarer than an honest politician's memoir. Since 1803, we've only seen 15 such spectacles in U.S. history, with a measly eight ending in Senate convictions. 

The usual suspects? "Making false statements, favoritism toward litigants or special appointees, intoxication on the bench, and abuse of the contempt power." If rubber-stamping Deep State dirt on lawmakers doesn't qualify as the judicial equivalent of drunk-driving a gavel, I don't know what does. Buckle up, Boasberg; the bench might be getting a vacancy notice.

Wouldn't it be lovely?

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

Leftist judge thinks he's running the country

Federal Judge Jamal Whitehead just dropped a bombshell, ordering the Trump administration to start resettling over 12,000 migrants whose admissions were paused for—get this—national interest reasons. Pause the tape. A judge, unelected, unaccountable, and definitely not the guy in charge of the country, thinks he can run immigration policy from his cozy Seattle courtroom.

This isn’t judicial review; it’s judicial mutiny.

The Constitution—yep, that pesky document judges love to wave around—says in Article II that executive power belongs to the president. Not some activist judge in D.C. or Seattle. Immigration? That’s the president’s turf. Always has been. Why? Because it’s not just about warm fuzzies and humanitarian hugs. It’s about national security—who comes in, who stays, and who might hurt Americans. That’s not for Judge Whitehead to micromanage over his morning latte.

But here we are. Again.

Whitehead’s ruling tries to turn a pre-pause travel schedule into a legal handcuff on the executive branch. That’s like saying if a cruise ship cancels your trip because the port’s a warzone, they still gotta sail you there because you’ve got a ticket. Newsflash: that’s not how executive discretion works. That’s not how any of this works.

And it’s not just Whitehead throwing punches. Enter Judge James Boasberg, the judiciary’s poster child for overreach. Earlier this year, Boasberg blocked deportations of—wait for it—alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. A gang. His excuse? Due process. He stopped Trump from deporting Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act, which, by the way, gives the president crystal-clear authority in times of national threat.

The Supreme Court initially slapped Boasberg down, saying deportation challenges belong where detainees are held, not in his D.C. fiefdom. But then SCOTUS hit pause on further deportations under the Act, showing they’re still wrestling with Trump’s immigration hammer. Still, let’s not kid ourselves: precedent’s on the president’s side. From Trump v. Hawaii to decades of rulings, SCOTUS has been loud and clear: the president—and only the president—calls the shots on immigration. And I’m betting that’s not changing anytime soon.

So yeah, Boasberg can stall. He can grandstand. But the Constitution’s still the boss.

Let’s talk precedent. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), SCOTUS backed the president’s power—straight from Congress—to block foreign nationals if their entry hurts the U.S. Chief Justice Roberts himself said the president has “broad discretion” in immigration. Translation: the Oval Office, not the courtroom, decides who’s in and who’s out.

Mic drop.

This isn’t some ancient scroll. It’s modern law. Binding precedent. And it torches the logic behind these rogue rulings. But when you’re a card-carrying member of the Obama-Biden judicial club, you think your robe comes with a crown.

Let’s cut through the fog. These judges are foot soldiers in a progressive war to gut immigration enforcement. Even with Trump back in charge, the legal booby traps from the Biden era are still exploding in courtrooms nationwide. The activist legal crowd’s got muscle memory, and it’s not fading quietly.
While Trump and his Homeland Security crew are trying to rebuild the wall, enforce the law, and put Americans first, they’re dodging lawsuits, Obama-Biden judges, and activist groups hellbent on keeping the border wide open. These judicial stunts aren’t about justice. They’re about sneaking progressive immigration policies in through the back door.

And who pays the price? American families. Every unvetted migrant or refugee rushed in under these rulings strains communities—think drained resources, spiking crime, or cultural upheaval.
Where’s the media meltdown? Where are the “defenders of democracy” now that judges are playing immigration czar?

Crickets.

They screamed “tyranny” when Trump issued legal executive orders—many of which SCOTUS greenlit. But now, when unelected judges are writing policy from the bench? Dead silence. Their outrage was never about the law. It was about power.

Let’s get real: the president has the constitutional mandate to secure the border, enforce immigration law, and protect the nation. That means he can pause, limit, or shift immigration policies based on threats, priorities, or resources.

That’s why Trump v. Hawaii went the way it did. That’s why the Alien Enemies Act exists. That’s why SCOTUS keeps telling district judges to stay out of foreign policy.

And that’s why Whitehead’s stunt—like Boasberg’s before him—is headed for the Supreme Court’s shredder.

When judges try to override the president on national security and immigration, what do we call it? Unconstitutional. Reckless. And ripe for reversal.

This kind of judicial activism doesn’t just blur the separation of powers—it obliterates it. If these judges don’t watch it, public trust in their institution’s gonna crash harder than a bad stock pick.
SCOTUS needs to bring the hammer. Again.

Until then, a word to the judiciary: you might wear the robe, but you don’t call the shots.
That’s the president’s job. And the Constitution’s still got his back.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call. 

Tweet

Republicans promise to stop leftist judges from stopping Trump's mandate

The Democrats are clutching their pearls and singing the sweet hymn of "separation of powers" again. This time, it’s over a D.C. circuit court judge—Obama appointee James Boasberg, naturally—whose daughter works with illegal aliens and slammed the brakes on the Trump administration’s plan to deport suspected Tren de Aragua gang members back to Venezuela. This would ensure his daughter wouldn't run out of clients in the future.

The lefties are calling it a noble stand for "due process." Republicans? They’re calling it what it is: a judge drunk on his own power, scribbling outside the lines. And they’re already plotting to make sure this judicial joyride doesn’t happen again.

This is just the latest episode in the Trump administration’s injunction-palooza—over a dozen district court judges across the country have been playing whack-a-mole with his policies. On Wednesday, a federal appellate court said, “Nah, we’re good,” refusing to pause Boasberg’s weekend special: a temporary restraining order blocking Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to ship out Venezuelan nationals.

Cue the House Judiciary Committee, which is gearing up for an “activist judges” hearing next week to figure out how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) appeared on Fox News Digital, sounding like the voice of reason: “I think the administration’s doing the right thing by fighting it legally.” He’s teasing a new bill to tackle this mess, too. “We’ll be looking at that next week,” he said, probably while polishing his spurs.

Then there’s Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who’s ready to unleash the full GOP legislative toolbox. “We’ll do everything that we can… to ensure that they are doing what’s right by the American people and then also following through on our constitutional obligations,” she told the outlet.

Luna dropped a truth bomb, too: “Right before President Trump took office, the Democrats actually knowingly made admissions that they were appointing obstructionist justices in order to undermine what the president’s agenda was.” Gee, who could’ve seen that coming? Even Chuck Schumer referred to them as "progressive judges."

Oh, and Luna's take on judges meddling in foreign policy? “Those judges are not elected to office to interpret or set foreign policy perspective. That is the entire job of the administration.” Mic drop.

But the Dems aren’t going down without a fight—or at least a sanctimonious lecture. Rep. Jesús García (D-IL) droned on about “due process” like it’s a sacred mantra, predicting the courts will “chime in strongly on this as they have already, in many instances.” Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) chimed in with, “I believe in the separation of powers and the federal courts are an equal branch of government.”

Thanks for the civics lesson, Greg. Meanwhile, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)—yes, that Swalwell—called Trump “insane” for daring to label Boasberg a “radical left lunatic of a judge” who deserves impeachment. “The judiciary has to be independent whether it goes for you or against you,” Fartboy huffed. “We can’t let politics invade judicial decisions, and wanting to impeach a judge is just insane.” Pot, meet kettle.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) took it a step further, arguing Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act might be a stretch because—get this—there’s no declared war. “The Alien Enemies Act is a law. It’s a law that has to be followed… they’re saying you have to actually follow the law, which is kind of a judge’s job,” he said, oozing smugness. “But it’s pursuant to a declaration of war. There has not been a declaration of war.” Slow clap for Captain Technicality.

Flip the script, and Republicans are asking the real question: “Who the hell do these robe-wearing overlords think they are?” Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) didn’t mince words: “A district in the east, or whatever, to be able to do an injunction and apply it to the whole country, they shouldn’t have the ability to do that. They shouldn’t do it.”

Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-OH) got poetic on the Capitol steps, pointing to the Supreme Court’s “equal justice under law” inscription. “When you have jurists that are acting in an unconstitutional manner… they need to go, period,” he said. “We’re coequal branches of government. That dude, he’s not a king.”

Rep. Michael Rulli (R-OH) called the whole activist-judge power trip “really scary.” “As far as the low-lying judges, it’s a little bit scary to think that they could actually stop the progression of a federal movement where you have the executive branch which should be the final say,” he told Fox. His fix? “My party needs to be very methodical about how we fix it, and we have to codify law to make sure that we can prevent this from happening again.” He’s not holding his breath, though: “It’s probably not going to be the fastest movement.”

So here we are: Democrats clutching their “separation of powers” security blanket, Republicans ready to rewrite the rulebook, and a bunch of unelected judges playing kingmaker. Just another day in D.C.

"Hey, if you’re enjoying this blog as much as I enjoy writing it, feel free to fuel my caffeine addiction over at Buy Me a Coffee – no pressure, just good vibes!"

Tweet

What we now know about Judge Boasberg raises serious questions

Well, well, well, it seems Judge James Boasberg, the D.C. District Court’s resident bleeding heart, has been caught with his hand in the partisan cookie jar. According to a judicial ethics report that’s about as subtle as a sledgehammer, this paragon of impartiality—who recently threw a wrench in President Trump’s noble quest to deport illegal alien gang members—attended what can only be described as a Democrat slumber party with gavels, cleverly disguised as a “legal conference” in Sun Valley, Idaho. 

How absolutely freaking quaint.

The agenda? Oh, just some light reading: “Judges in a Democracy” and “State of Democracy”—titles so dripping with 2024 Democrat campaign sloganeering that you can almost hear the echoes of “saving democracy” bouncing off the courtroom walls. You know, that tired old chestnut the left trots out every time they need an excuse to weaponize the judiciary against Trump’s America First agenda. Coincidence? 

Please, many of us were born at night, but we weren't born last night.

The report, dubbed a “Privately Funded Seminar Disclosure Report” (because nothing screams transparency like a vague title), confirms Boasberg was there, hobnobbing with the elite, but conveniently forgets to mention if he got a nice fat check for his troubles or just a pat on the back. 

“Called a ‘Privately Funded Seminar Disclosure Report,’ the document discloses that Boasberg was in attendance but offers no details of whether Boasberg was paid for his attendance or travel, or what the remuneration was,” reports Just the News. Shocking, right? 

A retired Democrat-appointed judge—clearly a stickler for optics—tattled to the outlet, whining that the July 2024 conference’s focus on “judges’ role in a democracy” sounded a tad too much like a certain party’s talking points. Just a tad, mind you.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, those fine upholders of judicial virtue, says private entities can wine and dine federal judges—oops, “invite them to educational programs”—and cover costs over $480, as long as they disclose some basic financial crumbs. “The rules do not require a specific accounting for each judge, or even how much was paid to judges at all,” because why would we want accountability when we can have ambiguity? 

Boasberg’s “payment” might’ve just been a reimbursement for his organic kale smoothie tab, but when Just the News asked, he pulled a classic liberal move: radio silence.

The whole setup stinks worse than Joe Biden's skivvies in August. 

Boasberg jets off to this Rodel Institute Judicial Fellowship—where he’s a shiny new first-year fellow, according to their website—rubs elbows with Trump-hating faculty advisors (20 of them, all card-carrying members of the “Orange Man Bad” club), and comes back ready to kneecap Trump’s deportation plans.

The Rodel Institute, by the way, is funded by the same shady foundations that bankroll every anti-Trump outfit from here to Portland. Their Board of Directors reads like a who’s-who of Trump Derangement Syndrome: Ian Solomon, Bill and Don Budinger (Don’s a big “no” on Arizona border security and a “yes” on Dem Senate hopefuls), ex-Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (Kamala Harris’s Cabinet shortlist star), turncoat Heather Carter (ditched the GOP for Katie Hobbs), Jamie Woodson (cried about “political disinformation” in 2016), and Rob McKenna, who’s called Trump a “demagogue” with “flimsy” legal arguments. Subtlety, thy name is not Rodel.

So, is it any wonder that after this little liberal love-in, Boasberg decides dangerous gang members deserve a cozy stay in the U.S.A.? 

This is peak judicial swamp: unelected robe-wearers sipping Chardonnay at partisan retreats, then ruling based on feelings instead of, say, the U.S. Constitution. 

Maybe next time, Judge Jimmy, pick a less obvious spot than a millionaire’s playground for your anti-Trump pow-wow. Then again, the left’s never been great at hiding their disdain for law, order, or that pesky orange guy in the White House.

"Thanks for reading! If you’d like to toss a coffee my way, check out my Buy Me A Coffee—means a lot!"

Tweet

Trump has hundreds of Venezuelans deported against court orders

The absurdity of the modern world continues unabated. A plane carrying over 200 Venezuelans, unceremoniously deported by the United States, has touched down in El Salvador. This, we are told, is in apparent defiance of a US judge's order prohibiting the Trump administration from carrying out such an act. 

One can almost hear the collective tut-tutting of the liberal establishment from here.

El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, took to social media to announce the arrival of 238 members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and 23 members of the Mexican gang MS-13 on Sunday morning. Their appearance in this Central American nation came mere hours after a federal judge blocked President Trump from invoking a wartime law dating back to 1798 to justify the deportations. Bukele, with a wry smirk no doubt, later posted: "Oopsie... Too late."

The detainees, Bukele informs us, were promptly whisked away to El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center "for a period of one year" - a stint that is, apparently, "renewable." One wonders if they will ever see the light of day again. "The United States will pay a very low fee for them, but a high one for us," he added, a statement dripping with implication.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the alleged gang members' arrival and thanked Bukele, dubbing him "the strongest security leader in our region." High praise indeed. Yet hours before, on Saturday evening, US District Judge James Boasberg had ordered a halt to deportations covered by Trump's proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 - a law allowing the government to detain and deport those threatening the nation's safety without due process. After hearing planes with deportees were taking off, Judge Boasberg demanded they be turned back, according to the Washington Post.

If you would like to support my work, you can Buy Me A Coffee or subscribe. Thank you.

A video accompanying one of Bukele's posts shows lines of shackled individuals, hands and feet bound, escorted by armed officials from the plane. Some are bundled into the back of armored vehicles. In January, Trump signed an executive order declaring Tren de Aragua and MS-13 foreign terrorist organisations. And so the great game of nations continues, with the lives of the wretched caught in the middle.

Tweet