U.S. President Donald Trump has sparked intense legal and political backlash after floating a legally dubious proposal to deport U.S. citizens convicted of crimes to El Salvador—a suggestion that constitutional law experts have condemned as both dangerous and clearly unconstitutional.
During a recent White House meeting with El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, Trump implied that certain “homegrown” criminals—presumably American-born individuals convicted of violent offenses—should be included in ongoing deportation efforts. Trump referenced recent violent crimes in the U.S. and lamented what he described as the country’s inability to remove its most dangerous offenders, even if they are American citizens.
“We always have to obey the laws,” Trump said, “but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they’re not looking. These are absolute monsters. I’d like to include them.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later confirmed that the Trump administration is exploring legal options to deport what she described as “heinous, violent criminals” to El Salvador, including U.S. citizens, “if there’s a legal pathway to do that.”
However, immigration and constitutional law experts have roundly rejected the idea, calling it a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution. Emma Winger, senior attorney at the American Immigration Council, stated plainly: “The laws that allow the U.S. to deport people apply only to non-citizens. U.S. citizens cannot be deported. Full stop.”
The legal ambiguity surrounding whether Trump’s proposal would target only naturalized citizens adds further controversy. While U.S. citizenship can be revoked in rare instances—typically involving fraud during the naturalization process—legal experts say this standard cannot be applied retroactively or arbitrarily.
Trump claimed that Attorney General Pam Bondi is currently reviewing the law, but neither the Department of Justice nor the White House has provided further details or clarification.
Legal scholars have issued stark warnings about the implications of Trump’s proposal. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, dismissed the idea outright as “pretty obviously illegal and unconstitutional.”
Georgia State University law professor Anthony Kreis drew parallels to the colonial-era British practice of exiling alleged criminals without trial, noting that the American Revolution was partly a rebellion against such abuses.
“I can’t see how exiling someone is permissible under the rights fundamental to U.S. citizenship—especially if that involves turning a person over to a foreign government,” said Kreis.
David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, warned that the proposal could open the door to extrajudicial imprisonment by foreign proxies. “There is no legal basis for deporting U.S. citizens to imprisonment abroad,” Bier said. “This must be shut down before U.S. citizens are unlawfully caught up in it.”
Concerns about the Trump administration’s approach to deportations have been amplified by the controversial case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a non-citizen allegedly linked to the MS-13 gang who was deported to El Salvador despite never being convicted of a crime in the U.S. or El Salvador. He was removed from the country before courts could evaluate his due process claims. Although a judge has ordered his return, the administration has argued it no longer has jurisdiction, and President Bukele has refused to repatriate him.
The Supreme Court weighed in, acknowledging that while the U.S. government must attempt to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, courts cannot override the president’s authority in foreign affairs. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a blistering opinion, warning that the government’s logic could be extended dangerously.
“If the judiciary cannot intervene, not only non-citizens but also U.S. citizens could be removed, flown out, and imprisoned abroad without judicial review,” she wrote.
This interpretation, legal experts say, sets a dangerous precedent. If the administration’s logic were extended to American citizens, they could potentially be deported without court oversight, denied access to due process, and imprisoned in foreign facilities with no legal recourse.
President Bukele has signaled his willingness to accept deportees, including potentially American citizens, into a newly constructed high-security prison known for its harsh conditions. Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Bukele told her those sent to the facility “will never leave.”
This statement has alarmed human rights advocates, who note that prisoners in the U.S.—regardless of their crimes—retain constitutional rights, including the right to appeal their conviction and challenge prison conditions. It remains unclear whether any such rights would be honored in an El Salvadoran facility.
The legal and ethical implications of this policy are profound. Critics argue it would erode the concept of citizenship, undermine the Constitution, and create a system where the government can unilaterally exile its own people.
Bier and other experts are urging the courts to act swiftly to block any attempts to deport U.S. citizens. “The government has already illegally deported someone to El Salvador and claimed no ability to bring them back,” Bier said. “This sets a terrifying precedent, and the courts must intervene before the Constitution is further violated.”
Somin echoed the sentiment, calling Trump’s proposal “an additional reason why courts must compel the administration to return Abrego Garcia and stop this unconstitutional train wreck.”
As Trump continues to test the limits of executive power, legal experts warn that even discussing the deportation of U.S. citizens sets a dangerous precedent—and one that demands immediate judicial scrutiny.
