logo
Trump Live Updates: Canada's New Leader Will Make High-Stakes Visit to White House

Trump Live Updates: Canada's New Leader Will Make High-Stakes Visit to White House

New York Times06-05-2025

A newly declassified memo released on Monday confirms that U.S. intelligence agencies rejected a key claim President Trump put forth to justify invoking a wartime statute to summarily deport Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.
The memo, dovetailing with intelligence findings first reported by The New York Times in March, states that spy agencies do not believe that the administration of Venezuela's president, Nicolás Maduro, controls a criminal gang, Tren de Aragua. That determination contradicts what Mr. Trump asserted when he invoked the deportation law, the Alien Enemies Act.
'While Venezuela's permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States,' the memo said.
The memo's release further undercuts the Trump administration's rationale for using the Alien Enemies Act and calls into question its forceful criticism of the ensuing coverage. After The Times published its article, the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation and portrayed the reporting as misleading and harmful. The administration doubled down a month later after similar coverage in The Washington Post, citing the disclosures in both articles as a reason to relax limits on leak investigations.
The document, known as a 'sense of the community' memo, was released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Freedom of the Press Foundation. The foundation provided a copy to The Times.
Lauren Harper, the Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy for the foundation, said the memo was at odds with the administration's portrayal of its contents as a dire threat to public safety.
The government 'almost immediately declassified the same information in response to a FOIA request,' she said.
Ms. Harper continued: 'The declassification proves that the material should have been public from the start — not used as an excuse to suppress sharing information with the press.'
But administration officials continued to defend Mr. Trump's policy.
'It is outrageous that as President Trump and his administration work hard every day to make America safe by deporting these violent criminals, some in the media remain intent on twisting and manipulating intelligence assessments to undermine the president's agenda to keep the American people safe,' Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement.
The White House and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment.
Until Mr. Trump invoked it in mid-March, the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law, had been used only three times in American history, all during declared wars. It says the government may summarily remove citizens of a country that is at war with the United States or otherwise engaged in an invasion of or predatory incursion into U.S. territory.
Immediately afterward, the administration sent planeloads of Venezuelans to a notorious high-security prison in El Salvador with no due process. Courts have since blocked further transfers under the proclamation. Citing evidence that some of the men sent there were likely not gang members, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to order the Trump administration to bring back the Venezuelans for normal immigration hearings.
On its face, the Alien Enemies Act appears to require a link to a foreign government. Mr. Trump declared that Tren de Aragua had committed crimes to destabilize the United States 'at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.'
But The Times reported days later that the intelligence community had circulated findings on Feb. 26 that reached the opposite conclusion. The shared assessment was that Venezuela's government and the gang were adversaries, even though some corrupt Venezuelan officials had ties to some gang members. It also said the gang lacked centralized command-and-control and was too disorganized to carry out any instructions.
The Times also reported that only the F.B.I. partly dissented and thought there was some kind of link, but it was based on information the other agencies — like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. — thought was not credible.
The Trump administration asked the National Intelligence Council, made up of senior analysts and national security policy experts who report to Ms. Gabbard, to take another look at the available evidence.
On April 7, it produced the memo released on Monday. The Washington Post reported on the memo, which remained classified, later that month, further angering the administration.
Now in public view, the memo said the intelligence community based its conclusion on a series of factors. Venezuelan security forces have arrested Tren de Aragua members and have 'periodically engaged in armed confrontations with TDA, resulting in the killing of some TDA members,' the memo said, showing that the government treats the gang as a threat.
While there is evidence that some 'mid- to low-level Venezuelan officials probably profit from TDA's illicit activities,' the memo said, the gang's decentralized makeup would make it 'logistically challenging' for the organization as a whole to act at the behest of the government.
The memo also shed additional light on the F.B.I.'s partial dissent.
It said that while F.B.I. analysts agreed with the other agencies' overall assessment, they also thought that 'some Venezuelan government officials facilitate TDA members' migration from Venezuela to the United States and use members as proxies in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and the United States to advance what they see as the Maduro regime's goal of destabilizing governments and undermining public safety in these countries.'
The F.B.I. based its view on 'people detained for involvement in criminal activity in the United States or for entering the country illegally.' But 'most' of the intelligence community 'judges that intelligence indicating that regime leaders are directing or enabling TDA migration to the United States is not credible,' the memo said.
In examining the available evidence, the National Intelligence Council evaluated whether detainees 'could credibly have access to the information reported' and whether they had offered details that could be corroborated about support the Maduro government had purportedly provided the gang in exchange for following its directions.
While portions of this section were redacted, the memo signaled skepticism. The detainees' legal troubles, it said, could 'motivate them to make false allegations about their ties to the Venezuelan regime in an effort to deflect responsibility for their crimes and to lessen any punishment by providing exculpatory or otherwise 'valuable' information to U.S. prosecutors.'
In late March, the memo noted, Chilean officials told the International Criminal Court that they suspected that the murder of a Venezuelan man in Chile last year was carried out by 'a cell or group linked to the Tren de Aragua that was politically motivated' and originated from an order by Venezuela's government. The Maduro administration denied that accusation.
But the memo also said other parts of the intelligence community had not observed or collected evidence of communications or funding flows showing government officials providing directions to leaders of the gang, even though such a relationship would likely require 'extensive' such interactions.
Judges so far have stayed away from second-guessing the truth of Mr. Trump's factual claims in deploying the Alien Enemies Act.
The day after the initial Times article, Todd Blanche, a former defense lawyer for Mr. Trump who is now deputy attorney general, announced that the Justice Department had opened a criminal leak investigation.
In a statement, he criticized the article, saying the information in it was classified but also 'inaccurate.' But the declassified memo supports The Times's reporting.
In an interview on Megyn Kelly's podcast last week, Ms. Gabbard said that the reporting on the intelligence community's conclusions was 'being investigated.' Leakers had 'selectively and intentionally left out the most important thing,' she added, pointing to the F.B.I.'s belief that the Maduro government was supporting the gang's activities in the United States.
But the articles in both The Times and The Post discussed the F.B.I.'s contrary view.
Last month, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in a memo that she would roll back protections for press freedoms in leak investigations, citing the Times and Post articles as damaging examples of leaks of classified information.
In an Espionage Act case, prosecutors must prove that someone knowingly made an unauthorized disclosure of defense-related information that could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary. The government's declassification of the memo raises questions about any case that could be brought over the Times and Post articles.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Moves to Lift Biden-Era Curbs on Arctic Oil Drilling
Trump Moves to Lift Biden-Era Curbs on Arctic Oil Drilling

Bloomberg

time2 hours ago

  • Bloomberg

Trump Moves to Lift Biden-Era Curbs on Arctic Oil Drilling

The Trump administration is moving to repeal Biden-era curbs blocking oil drilling across most of the mammoth petroleum reserve in Alaska that's home to an estimated 8.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the planned policy shift late Sunday at a town hall in Utqiagvik, a village on the Chukchi Sea coast, as he and fellow members of President Donald Trump's cabinet visit Alaska to promote energy development in the region.

What's next for President Trump's tariffs after whiplash court rulings?
What's next for President Trump's tariffs after whiplash court rulings?

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

What's next for President Trump's tariffs after whiplash court rulings?

President Donald Trump's steepest tariffs fell into legal limbo this week, casting uncertainty over a major swath of the president's signature economic policy. The Trump administration could ultimately prevail in a court battle over the levies or seek other legal authorities to reimpose some of the tariffs, experts told ABC News, but a complete revival of the policy now faces formidable obstacles. Two separate federal courts invalidated far-reaching levies on dozens of countries unveiled in a Rose Garden ceremony that Trump had dubbed "Liberation Day." The rulings also struck down 30% tariffs imposed on China as well as a baseline 10% levy slapped on nearly all imports, among other measures. MORE: Trump claims China 'totally violated' trade agreement with US A federal appeals court moved to temporarily reinstate the tariffs on Thursday afternoon, however, keeping the levies in place while judges weigh the underlying legal justification. Here's what to know about what's next for Trump's tariffs and what happens to the tax revenue already paid, according to experts. The court rulings this week set off a legal battle over the tariffs that could stretch on for more than a year and make its way to the Supreme Court, experts told ABC News. The rulings against the levies in two federal courts – the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. -- centered on Trump's unprecedented invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act as a legal justification for tariffs. The 1977 law allows the president to stop all transactions with a foreign adversary that poses a threat, including the use of tools like sanctions and trade embargoes. But the measure does not explicitly permit tariffs, putting Trump in untested legal territory. "These are momentous actions to reverse a major initiative of the president of the United States," Alan Wolff, a former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, told ABC News. "It's a real loss for the White House." The temporary reinstatement of the tariffs allows the policy to continue as the legal fight plays out, but the ruling does not indicate how judges will weigh in on the merits of the case, Wolff added. "It doesn't change the circumstances in court all that much," Wolff said. "I'm sure the White House would like this to get straightened out as soon as possible." In a social media post, Trump slammed the judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade and touted the benefits of his tariff policy. "Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?" Trump said. The three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International trade included one judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, one judge appointed by Barack Obama and one judge appointed by Trump himself. Trump added: "In this case, it is only because of my successful use of Tariffs that many Trillions of Dollars have already begun pouring into the U.S.A. from other Countries, money that, without these Tariffs, we would not be able to get. It is the difference between having a rich, prosperous, and successful United States of America, and quite the opposite." As of Wednesday, U.S. tariffs had generated about $68 billion in revenue so far this year, though only a portion of those funds owes to levies at risk of being struck down, according to a Politico analysis. The duration of the legal battle may depend on the rulings handed down from the two appeals courts handling each of the Trump administration's challenges, Patrick Childress, a former trade official under President Joe Biden and Trump, told ABC News. If the two appellate courts handed down opposing decisions, it would raise the likelihood that the case will take over a year and ultimately reach the Supreme Court, Childress said. But, he added, a pair of similar rulings at the appeals court level could fast-track resolution of the case. For now, the fate of the tariffs at issue remains highly unclear, even after the appeals court temporarily reinstated them, Childress added. "There's still a very similar amount of uncertainty," Childress said. If the courts ultimately rule against Trump's tariffs, the White House may explore other legal authorities as a means of reviving some of the levies, experts said. In some cases, however, the alternative legal statutes would require time-consuming investigations at federal agencies and put limits on the scope of the levies. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the executive to invoke temporary tariff authority in response to an adverse trade policy taken up by another country. Trump's tariffs on a wide swath of Chinese goods during his first term relied on Section 301, which Biden invoked in service of tariffs of his own. The White House may use Section 301 to reimpose tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China over the nations' respective roles in the transport of fentanyl to the U.S., Childress said. But a wide-ranging invocation of Section 301 for tariffs on dozens of countries could pose administrative challenges, since each use of the measure requires a federal investigation of the alleged abuses, he added. "It wouldn't be impossible but it would require a lot of investigations," Childress said. The Trump administration is weighing the use of a separate provision of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose country-specific tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, The Wall Street Journal reported. The White House could also expand its use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the executive to impose tariffs on a specific product if the Commerce Department deems foreign production a threat to national security. Trump already has invoked the measure to slap 25% tariffs on cars, steel and aluminum. Additional sector-specific tariffs may hit pharmaceuticals and semiconductor chips, according to recent comments from Trump. Importers who have paid the tariffs at issue will receive government refunds if the levies fall victim to legal challenges, experts told ABC News. "Companies should get the money back if that's the result -- and it's a lot of money," Wolff said. MORE: Appeals court reinstates Trump's tariffs for now after ruling blocking them The federal government will likely slow down the issuance of refunds until the legal cases are resolved, Childress said. "Importers who made the payments could be looking at one or even two years until those refunds get paid," Childress added. When seeking a refund, companies will need to provide detailed information about their imports, the date of shipment and where the products entered the U.S. "All of that information is necessary to get a refund further down the road," Childress said. What's next for President Trump's tariffs after whiplash court rulings? originally appeared on

Woman, 64, in U.S. legally for 50 years detained by ICE for 3 months
Woman, 64, in U.S. legally for 50 years detained by ICE for 3 months

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Woman, 64, in U.S. legally for 50 years detained by ICE for 3 months

A 64-year-old woman, a legal permanent resident of the United States for the last 50 years, was held in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for three months, according to multiple media reports. A lab technician at the University of Washington, Lewelyn Dixon, was arrested at Seattle-Tacoma Airport and taken to the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, according to reporting by Oregon Public Broadcasting. A Filipino green-card holder, Dixon has been in the U.S. since she was 14 and was detained after returning from a trip to the Philippines in late February. 'It was horrific; it was awful, it is crowded,' she told loved ones, friends and supporters who greeted her outside the detention facility after a judge ruled she was not eligible for deportation, NBC News reported. Since Trump has taken office, several green-card holders, including a Danish national father of four with no criminal record who has legally been in the country for more than 10 years, have been swept up in the administration's immigration crackdown. In Dixon's case, what caught the attention of U.S. Customs and Border Protection was likely a 25-year-old embezzlement conviction, attorney Benjamin Osorio told the outlet. In 2000, the 64-year-old pleaded guilty to stealing $6,460 from Washington Mutual Bank, where she worked as a vault teller and operations supervisor. She was ordered to spend 30 days in a halfway house and pay restitution, both of which she has completed. 'They're trying to kill me': Transgender woman in L.A. violently assaulted Lani Madriaga, Dixon's niece, told NBC News the entire ordeal has been traumatizing and emotional, especially since the 64-year-old never told her family about the conviction. 'We don't think of her any differently after we found out about her conviction,' she told the outlet. 'She turned it all around and she really worked hard and really focused on health care, where it's really about helping the community.' Long eligible for citizenship, the 64-year-old never pursued it because she promised her father she'd maintain her Filipino nationality so that she could keep property in the country. According to her niece, Dixon's first priorities now that she's out of the detention facility are to get her citizenship and return to work. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store