State Dept. official argues judge’s deportation flights order endangers US foreign policy

The United States’ foreign policy may face challenges following a federal judge’s decision to order deportation flights containing Venezuelan gang members back to the country. Michael Kozak, a Senior Bureau Official at the State Department, expressed concerns in a recent court filing about the potential harm to U.S. foreign policy if the removal of individuals associated with the gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) were prevented.

Judge James Boasberg, appointed during the Obama administration and based in D.C., issued an order to halt any planned deportations of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador. This order included alleged members of the violent TdA gang. Kozak highlighted the significant time and energy already invested by U.S. government officials in these deportation efforts and warned of potential negative consequences on foreign policy if the removals were stopped.

There are fears that foreign interlocutors might change their stance on accepting individuals associated with TdA or use this issue as leverage in negotiations with the U.S. Kozak did not elaborate on the specific harm that could arise from Boasberg’s order but emphasized the potential implications for ongoing foreign policy discussions.

The White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, described TdA as one of the most violent and ruthless terrorist gangs worldwide, responsible for heinous crimes including murders on U.S. soil. The Trump administration had sought to use a 1798 law to immediately deport these individuals, but Boasberg sided with the plaintiffs in granting an emergency order to halt the deportations.

In response, the Trump Department of Justice argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ claims and that the President’s determination of a national security threat posed by TdA members should not be subject to judicial review. The administration asserted that the deportation efforts were lawful and necessary to protect the nation.

The court has scheduled a hearing for Friday to further address the situation, with both parties summoned to provide additional information. The Trump administration’s motion to vacate the order emphasized the President’s authority to address threats to national security and the legality of the deportation actions taken.

As the legal battle continues, the impact on U.S. foreign policy and national security remains a point of contention. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the handling of gang-related threats and deportation policies in the future. Stay tuned for further developments on this complex and evolving issue.