- We The 66
- Posts
- 🌊 Is Blocking Deportations Partisan Politics?
🌊 Is Blocking Deportations Partisan Politics?
Republicans say immigration rulings prove that the judiciary is politicized
Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
By Max Frost
The meme in question
Fueled by a retweet from Elon Musk, this meme has gone viral on social media, raking up 31M+ views on X.
When sharing it, Musk added, “That is the fundamental question. Why did the federal judiciary turn a blind eye to the importation of millions of illegals, but now is apoplectic over any action to remove them? How is this anything other than extremely partisan politics masquerading as jurisprudence?"
In today’s deep dive, we answer that question.
The meme was referencing Washington, DC District Judge James E. Boasberg, who ordered the Trump Administration to temporarily pause its use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants. Specifically, Trump had invoked the law – used three times in American history, each during a war – to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador without due process.
In issuing his order, Judge Boasberg – an Obama appointee confirmed with a 96-0 Senate vote – said he needed more time to decide whether the Alien Enemies Act could be used as Trump wanted.
The move was blasted by many Republicans, who accused one unelected judge in DC of obstructing Trump’s immigration agenda. Trump suggested Boasberg should be impeached, while Steve Bannon, a leading MAGA ideologue, declared the start of a constitutional crisis.
Many conservatives asked the same question as Musk: How can one judge obstruct the president’s agenda, while Biden was allowed to reduce enforcement of immigration law?
The answer largely comes down to a Supreme Court decision from 1985, when a group of death row inmates was scheduled to be executed via lethal injection.
The rest of this report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
Editor’s Note
That’s it for today. Curious, as always, to hear your thoughts. Send those over by replying to this email.
In case you missed our recent stories, read them here:
And some reader replies:
David wrote:
The function that ONA was initially tasked with seems critical. Your article implies they have strayed from their path, become ineffective and made irrelevant by similar functions performed by other groups. It definitely should not be outsourced . Something must be done to ensure the function is performed, hopefully in a more efficient manner. While ONA spends only $20M, I wonder how much other groups are spending on the same thing?
Closing ONA is an easy target but doing so without an alternative plan would be irresponsible. Where is the plan behind the Trump chaos (there usually is)? Or is this just politics as usual?
Jill from Albuquerque wrote:
Yes, it’s only $20M out of a huge defense budget. But f the logic of letting a bit of waste slide is replicated across government, we will never make cuts, never cut the deficit. Besides, the ONA seems like it had an important role during the Cold War, but times change. There’s no evidence it’s providing any kind of vital service in 2025. Let’s put the money toward something better – not a legacy interest.
And Ian from Virginia:
As someone who went to school for Strategic Intelligence, shuttering the ONA for $20m in savings (maximum) is a bad play.
If Trump wants to consistently win points from his supporters by slashing government spending, this isn't the best place to play fast and loose. I agree with the assessment that the Defense sector of the American government is massively inefficient and a black hole of U.S. taxpayer money (7-in-a-row failed audits by the Pentagon, anyone?), but reshaping guidelines on contractor outsourcing seems like a less short-sighted approach.
The Intelligence community as a holistic entity almost completely focuses on ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance - all fall within the scope of immediate intel gathering), not necessarily long-term geopolitical and military strategy.
Continuing to have an ONA office (even a downsized one) with much tighter rules on spending would pay strategic dividends that outweigh any immediate monetary savings.
That’s all for today. Thanks for your replies — see you tomorrow.
–Max and Max