For the past several months, the Trump administration has insisted in court that it has no control over the nearly 140 Venezuelan immigrants it deported to a prison in El Salvador this spring under the powers of a rarely used wartime statute.

Both in filings and at hearings, Trump officials have asserted that because the men are being held by jailers in El Salvador, the Salvadoran government has control over their fate. The administration has repeatedly made that claim to argue that it has no real authority to bring the immigrants back itself.

On Monday, however, lawyers for the Venezuelan men produced a document indicating that the government of El Salvador recently told the United Nations that it, in fact, bears no legal responsibility for the men. The document, written in response to a U.N. inquiry examining some of the deportations, also claimed that the Salvadoran government was merely doing the United States’ bidding when it accepted the men into its prison system.

“The actions of the state of El Salvador have been limited to the implementation of a bilateral cooperation mechanism with another state, through which it has facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison infrastructure for the custody of persons detained within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement of that other state,” the document said.

“In this context,” it went on, “the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities, by virtue of international agreements signed and in accordance with the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation in criminal matters.”

The document was included in a new court filing submitted to Judge James E. Boasberg, who has been hearing a long-running legal case brought by the Venezuelan men in Federal District Court in Washington. As part of that case, Judge Boasberg ordered the Trump administration last month to take steps toward providing the men with the due process they were denied when the White House deported them to El Salvador under the expansive powers of the wartime law, known as the Alien Enemies Act.

The document could present a problem for the administration because it seems to undermine a position that lawyers for the Justice Department and top Trump officials have taken time and again in front of Judge Boasberg. The lawyers for the Venezuelans also claimed that department lawyers knew about the document for months but failed to inform either them or the judge.

“We are pleased that El Salvador publicly told the truth about what we all knew: that it’s the United States that controls the fate of the Venezuelans,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which, along with another legal group, Democracy Forward, has been representing the men. “That the United States did not provide us or the court with this information is extraordinary.”

Skye Perryman, the president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, added, “The documents filed with the court today show that the administration has not been honest with the court or the American people.”

A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

The underlying agreement between the Trump administration and the government of President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador first began to attract attention after the White House deported scores of Venezuelans accused of being members of the street gang Tren de Aragua to El Salvador on March 15.

An investigation by The New York Times recently found that the U.S. government not only paid Mr. Bukele’s administration millions of dollars as part of the deal, but also added an extra sweetener at his request: the return to El Salvador of top leaders in a different street gang, MS-13, some of whom had knowledge of his corrupt relations with the group.

The case in front of Judge Boasberg is just one of the many legal skirmishes between the A.C.L.U. and the Trump administration over President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. Shortly after he returned to office, Mr. Trump issued a proclamation invoking the act to deport Venezuelans accused of being members of Tren de Aragua, which he has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.

Federal courts around the country have been divided on the issue of whether he has properly used the law, which was first passed in 1798 and is meant to be employed only in times of declared war or during an invasion by a hostile foreign nation.

Last week, a federal appeals court in New Orleans held its own hearing about the president’s proclamation in a case that is likely to be the first to end up at the Supreme Court. The justices have already decided that the White House failed to give immigrants ample opportunity to challenge their removals under the act. But they have yet to rule on whether Mr. Trump’s claims that the presence of Tren de Aragua in the United States is tantamount to an invasion and that its members have been acting at the behest of a hostile Venezuelan government comport with reality.

When Judge Boasberg ordered the administration to work toward giving due process to the Venezuelan men even though they remain locked up at the so-called Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, his instructions came in a sweeping — and at times outraged — ruling that compared them to characters in a Kafka novel.

The judge asserted that the White House had effectively stripped the men of their rights by not allowing them to contest their deportations before they were flown into the custody of Salvadoran jailers. But he did not weigh in on the larger question of whether Mr. Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act lawfully when he expelled the men to El Salvador.

Judge Boasberg also grappled in his ruling with the critical issue of who had control over the men at CECOT — Mr. Bukele’s government, which received them at the prison, or the United States government, which sent them there.

While the judge acknowledged that it was “a close question,” he eventually determined that “the United States and El Salvador have struck a diplomatic bargain vis-à-vis the detainees” and that he could not second-guess the Trump administration’s assertions that the Salvadorans were in charge.

Still, Judge Boasberg expressed a measure of skepticism, pointing out that several top Trump officials had publicly stated that the administration was deeply involved in the plans to hold the men at the terrorism center.

It remains unclear what effect, if any, the new document could have on Judge Boasberg’s decision, which was temporarily put on hold last month by the federal appeals court that sits over him.

The lawyers for the Venezuelans said they wanted to reserve the right to ask the government for additional discovery information about the deal the administration had struck with El Salvador, given that the new document seemed to go beyond “the current record” in the case in front of Judge Boasberg.

The lawyers said that such additional information was important because the new material contradicted a sworn declaration filed in May by Michael G. Kozak, a senior State Department diplomat.

“It was and remains my understanding that the detention and ultimate disposition of those detained in CECOT and other Salvadoran detention facilities,” Mr. Kozak said in the declaration, “are matters within the legal authority of El Salvador in accordance with its domestic and international legal obligations.”

NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/07/us/politics/trump-venezuelans-un-el-salvador-cecot.html

Documento pone en duda la versión de la Casa Blanca sobre los venezolanos deportados

Durante los últimos meses, la administración ha sostenido en los tribunales que carece de control sobre los casi 140 venezolanos que deportó esta primavera a una cárcel en El Salvador, amparada en las facultades de un estatuto bélico raramente invocado. Tanto en escritos como en audiencias, los funcionarios han alegado que, dado que los hombres están bajo la custodia de carceleros salvadoreños, es el Gobierno de El Salvador quien decide su destino y que la Casa Blanca no dispone de autoridad real para traerlos de vuelta.

No obstante, el lunes los abogados de los venezolanos presentaron un documento que indica que el Gobierno de El Salvador informó recientemente a Naciones Unidas que, en realidad, no asume ninguna responsabilidad jurídica sobre ellos. El escrito, elaborado en respuesta a una consulta de la ONU sobre las deportaciones, también afirma que El Salvador se limitó a cumplir los designios de Estados Unidos al admitir a los detenidos en su sistema penitenciario.

«Las actuaciones del Estado salvadoreño se han circunscrito a la ejecución de un mecanismo bilateral de cooperación con otro Estado, mediante el cual ha facilitado la utilización de la infraestructura penitenciaria salvadoreña para la custodia de personas detenidas en el marco del sistema de justicia y la aplicación de la ley de dicho Estado», señala el documento.

«En este contexto —prosigue—, la jurisdicción y la responsabilidad jurídica sobre estas personas recaen exclusivamente en las autoridades extranjeras competentes, en virtud de los acuerdos internacionales suscritos y conforme a los principios de soberanía y cooperación internacional en materia penal».

El texto fue incluido en un nuevo escrito presentado al juez James E. Boasberg, quien conoce desde hace tiempo la demanda interpuesta por los venezolanos ante el Tribunal Federal de Distrito en Washington. El mes pasado, Boasberg ordenó a la administración que avanzara en concederles las garantías de debido proceso que se les negaron cuando los expulsaron a El Salvador aplicando la amplia potestad que confiere la Ley de Extranjeros Enemigos.

El documento podría resultar problemático para la administración, pues contradice la posición que ha defendido reiteradamente ante el magistrado. Los abogados de los venezolanos alegan además que el Departamento de Justicia conocía el escrito desde hace meses y no lo comunicó ni a la defensa ni al juez.

«Nos complace que El Salvador haya dicho públicamente lo que todos sabíamos: que es Estados Unidos quien controla el destino de los venezolanos», declaró Lee Gelernt, abogado de la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU), que representa a los demandantes junto con Democracy Forward. «Que la administración no nos haya proporcionado esta información, ni al tribunal, es extraordinario».

Skye Perryman, presidenta y directora ejecutiva de Democracy Forward, añadió: «Los documentos incorporados hoy al expediente demuestran que la administración no ha sido honesta con la corte ni con el pueblo estadounidense».

Un portavoz del Departamento de Justicia no respondió de inmediato a una solicitud de comentarios.

El acuerdo entre la administración Trump y el gobierno de Nayib Bukele empezó a llamar la atención después de que la Casa Blanca deportara a decenas de venezolanos acusados de pertenecer a la banda Tren de Aragua a El Salvador, el 15 de marzo. Una investigación de The New York Times reveló que Estados Unidos no solo pagó millones de dólares al Ejecutivo salvadoreño, sino que además añadió un incentivo extra a petición de Bukele: la repatriación de cabecillas de la MS-13 con conocimiento de sus vínculos corruptos con esa pandilla.

El caso ante Boasberg es solo uno de los muchos contenciosos entre la ACLU y la administración por el empleo de la Ley de Extranjeros Enemigos. Poco después de regresar a la Casa Blanca, Trump emitió una proclama invocando dicha ley para deportar a los presuntos miembros del Tren de Aragua, designado como organización terrorista extranjera. Los tribunales federales están divididos sobre si ha empleado la norma correctamente. La ley, aprobada en 1798, solo puede usarse en tiempos de guerra declarada o durante la invasión de una nación hostil.

La semana pasada, un tribunal federal de apelaciones en Nueva Orleans celebró una audiencia sobre la proclama en un caso que probablemente acabará en la Corte Suprema. Los magistrados ya han dictaminado que la Casa Blanca no ofreció a los inmigrantes oportunidades suficientes para impugnar sus expulsiones, pero aún deben pronunciarse sobre si la presencia del Tren de Aragua equivale a una invasión orquestada desde Caracas.

Cuando Boasberg ordenó al Ejecutivo avanzar en el debido proceso para los venezolanos —pese a que siguen encerrados en el Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT)— lo hizo mediante una resolución contundente, por momentos indignada, en la que los comparó con personajes de Kafka. El juez aseguró que la Casa Blanca les había despojado de sus derechos al impedirles impugnar las deportaciones antes de volar a El Salvador. Sin embargo, evitó pronunciarse sobre el fondo: si Trump invocó la Ley de Extranjeros Enemigos de forma lícita al enviarlos allí.

Boasberg también abordó el punto crucial de quién controla realmente a los reclusos en el CECOT: el gobierno de Bukele, que los recibió, o Estados Unidos, que los envió. Aunque reconoció que era «una cuestión reñida», concluyó que «Estados Unidos y El Salvador han cerrado un pacto diplomático respecto de los detenidos» y que no podía cuestionar la afirmación del Ejecutivo de que la autoridad recae en los salvadoreños. No obstante, manifestó cierto escepticismo al recordar que varios altos funcionarios de la administración habían reconocido públicamente su participación en el plan para encarcelarlos en ese centro de máxima seguridad.

Aún no está claro qué efecto tendrá el nuevo documento en la resolución de Boasberg, suspendida temporalmente el mes pasado por el tribunal de apelaciones. Los abogados de los venezolanos quieren reservarse el derecho a solicitar más pruebas sobre el acuerdo con El Salvador, dado que el escrito parece ir más allá «del expediente actual» ante el juez. Señalan que esa información es relevante porque contradice la declaración jurada presentada en mayo por Michael G. Kozak, alto diplomático del Departamento de Estado, quien aseguró que la detención y el destino final de los internos del CECOT «son asuntos dentro de la autoridad legal de El Salvador, conforme a sus obligaciones internas e internacionales».

NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/07/us/politics/trump-venezuelans-un-el-salvador-cecot.html