In a dramatic display of political theater and policy enforcement, President Donald Trump took to social media to thank El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele after a stunning video showed hundreds of suspected migrant criminals being deported to Central America. The deportations, conducted under the controversial Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a law that allows the removal of citizens and natives of an enemy country without a hearing—have ignited a firestorm of debate across the political spectrum.
Trump’s message was unequivocal: he credited Bukele for his “understanding” in dealing with what he called a “horrible situation” that he blamed on “incompetent Democrat leadership.” In his tweet, Trump went further by describing the apprehended migrants as “the monsters sent into our Country by Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats.” This rhetoric, laden with political hyperbole, has drawn both praise and condemnation from different corners of the political landscape.
The deportation operation itself was significant. A total of 261 illegal aliens were reportedly deported to El Salvador in a single day. Of these, 137 individuals were deported under the Alien Enemies Act, 101 were Venezuelans deported under Title 8, 21 were Salvadoran gang members associated with MS-13, and two were classified as MS-13 ringleaders—marked as “special cases” for El Salvador. The offenses attributed to these individuals ranged from kidnapping and child sexual abuse to aggravated assault and robbery, underscoring the administration’s framing of these migrants as a direct threat to U.S. security.
Yet, even as Trump’s tweet celebrated this enforcement action, legal challenges soon emerged. A federal judge—U.S. District Judge James Boasberg—ordered an immediate halt to further deportations of the alleged gang members, citing timing issues and the fact that the migrants were already outside U.S. airspace when the judge’s order was issued. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that the judge’s order had “no lawful basis” because it came too late, emphasizing that a single judge could not dictate the movements of “an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists” who had already been expelled.
On the international front, President Bukele of El Salvador posted graphic footage on X (formerly Twitter) showing heavily armed Salvadoran police escorting the apprehended migrants into what he termed a “terrorism confinement center.” Bukele noted that the detainees, who included suspected gang members, would remain in the facility for at least a year. The footage showed migrants with their heads down, hands behind their necks, and even shaving their hair—a visual meant to underscore both discipline and the seriousness with which the Salvadoran government was treating the matter. Bukele explained that these measures, combined with ongoing programs like the Zero Idleness initiative involving over 40,000 inmates, were intended to make the country’s prison system self-sustainable while gathering vital intelligence to dismantle the remaining structures of MS-13.
Even high-ranking U.S. officials found reasons to comment. Secretary of State Marco Rubio lauded Bukele as “not only the strongest security leader in our region, but also a great friend of the U.S.,” thanking him for his “assistance and friendship.”
This extensive article delves into the multiple dimensions of this controversial development—from the historical background of the Alien Enemies Act to the legal debates, political fallout, and its potential impact on U.S.-El Salvador relations and domestic immigration policy. We begin by exploring the origins and implications of the Alien Enemies Act, then move to an in-depth review of the deportation operation and the subsequent legal and political reactions. Finally, we reflect on what this might mean for the future of immigration enforcement and bilateral relations in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.
I. The Historical and Legal Context of the Alien Enemies Act
A. Origins of the Alien Enemies Act
The Alien Enemies Act was enacted in 1798, during a period of intense international rivalry and conflict. Originally designed as a wartime measure, it granted the U.S. government the authority to detain and deport citizens and residents of nations considered hostile. Over the centuries, the law has been largely dormant, its provisions seldom invoked. However, in recent years, its application has been revisited by proponents of a hardline immigration stance.
The Act’s language permits the deportation of individuals from “enemy” countries without the benefit of a hearing—a power that has drawn both legal scrutiny and political controversy. Critics argue that using such an archaic statute in modern times poses significant risks to civil liberties and due process. Yet, supporters maintain that it is a necessary tool for ensuring national security, particularly in situations where the perceived threat is high.
B. The Controversial Reintroduction Under the Trump Administration
The Trump administration, known for its aggressive immigration policies, revived the use of the Alien Enemies Act as part of its broader strategy to curb illegal immigration and dismantle transnational criminal organizations. By invoking this law, the administration sought to bypass lengthy judicial procedures and send a swift message to both domestic audiences and international adversaries.
In Trump’s rhetoric, the Act was portrayed as a mechanism to protect the nation from “monsters” and to reclaim U.S. borders from what he depicted as the chaotic policies of the “Radical Left Democrats.” The language used not only polarized public opinion but also set the stage for a series of legal challenges that would test the boundaries of executive power in immigration enforcement.
C. Legal Debates and Constitutional Concerns
The deployment of the Alien Enemies Act in the modern era raises complex legal questions. Constitutional scholars have debated whether the broad powers granted by the Act are compatible with contemporary interpretations of due process and the right to a fair hearing. Critics contend that deporting individuals without a hearing contravenes fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution, while supporters argue that in matters of national security, swift and decisive action is paramount.
Moreover, the use of this law in a politically charged environment further complicates its interpretation. The administration’s decision to deploy the Act against certain groups—particularly those labeled as gang members—has led to accusations of selective enforcement and politicization of the law. As legal challenges mount, courts are being called upon to reconcile centuries-old legislation with modern legal standards and human rights norms.
II. The Deportation Operation: Details, Numbers, and Breakdown
A. Scale and Scope of the Operation
On the day in question, a total of 261 illegal aliens were deported to El Salvador—a figure that, while significant, represents just one facet of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. The operation involved multiple legal mechanisms and targeted various groups, each with distinct legal classifications and backgrounds.
The breakdown is as follows:
-
137 individuals were deported under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
-
101 Venezuelans were removed under Title 8 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
-
21 Salvadoran nationals were identified as members of the notorious MS-13 gang.
-
2 individuals were designated as MS-13 ringleaders and treated as “special cases” for deportation to El Salvador.
These figures were disclosed by a senior Trump administration official in an interview with Fox News, underscoring the scale of the operation and the administration’s commitment to using all available legal tools to enforce immigration laws.
B. The Nature of the Offenses
The deported individuals were not ordinary undocumented migrants; they were linked to serious criminal activities. Rap sheets detailed offenses including:
-
Kidnapping
-
Child sexual abuse
-
Aggravated assault
-
Prostitution
-
Robbery
-
Aggravated assault of a police officer
Such charges provided the administration with a legal and political justification for their swift removal. By highlighting the criminal background of these individuals, Trump and his supporters argued that the deportations were necessary to protect American communities and maintain public safety.
C. Timing and International Airspace: The Judge’s Intervention
A pivotal moment in the operation came when a federal judge intervened. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered an immediate halt to further deportations of the alleged gang members. The judge’s decision was based on procedural timing—the planes carrying the migrants had already reached international airspace by the time the order was issued. A senior Trump administration official explained, “We did not defy a court order. The order came too late, and illegals were already in international airspace.”
This judicial intervention highlights the tension between rapid executive action and the checks and balances provided by the judiciary. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt further defended the administration’s actions by asserting that the judge’s order “had no lawful basis” since it was issued after the migrants had already been expelled from U.S. territory.
III. Trump’s Message: Rhetoric, Rhetorical Targets, and Political Messaging
A. Trump’s Social Media Declaration
In a tweet that quickly became a focal point of controversy, President Trump thanked President Nayib Bukele for his “understanding” and cooperation. Trump’s message, laden with his trademark provocative language, read:
“Thank you to El Salvador and, in particular, President Bukele, for your understanding of this horrible situation, which was allowed to happen to the United States because of incompetent Democrat leadership. We will not forget.”
Trump went on to refer to the deported migrants as “the monsters sent into our Country by Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats.” This choice of words was not accidental—it was designed to appeal to his base by framing the deportation operation as a necessary corrective measure against what he characterized as failed immigration policies under the Biden administration.
B. Political Rhetoric and the Blame Game
The language used by Trump in his tweet serves multiple purposes. First, it shifts the blame for the current immigration crisis onto “Democrat leadership,” implicitly criticizing President Biden and his policies. By labeling the migrants as “monsters,” Trump not only dehumanizes them but also reinforces a narrative that positions the administration as the only force capable of protecting the country from dangerous elements.
This rhetoric resonates deeply with a segment of the electorate that favors stringent immigration controls. It also sets up a clear dichotomy between Trump’s “law and order” approach and the policies of his political opponents, a theme that has been central to his political messaging since his 2016 campaign.
C. The Use of the Alien Enemies Act as a Political Tool
By citing the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, Trump invokes a piece of legislation that many view as outdated and controversial. The Act, originally designed for wartime use, is repurposed here to justify the rapid deportation of individuals deemed as threats to national security. This move is emblematic of Trump’s broader strategy: using hardline, sometimes anachronistic legal tools to address contemporary issues.
Critics argue that this is a politically motivated rebranding of immigration enforcement, designed to bypass the procedural safeguards that are typically required in deportation cases. Supporters, however, see it as a bold move that underscores the administration’s commitment to upholding the law and protecting American citizens from criminal elements.
IV. The Reaction from the Trump Administration and Its Supporters
A. Official Statements and Media Coverage
Following the deportation operation and Trump’s tweet, senior Trump administration officials provided further clarification on Fox News. One official noted that the deportations were carried out in strict adherence to existing laws and that any judicial intervention came after the operation had already been executed. This official’s statement aimed to pre-empt any claims that the administration had overstepped its authority.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also weighed in, emphasizing that a “single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.” This hyperbolic imagery is a hallmark of Trump’s supporters, who appreciate the administration’s unapologetic stance on immigration enforcement.
B. Support from Political Allies
The move also received public praise from notable figures in the Trump administration’s circle. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was quick to express his admiration for President Bukele, posting on X that Bukele is “not only the strongest security leader in our region, but also a great friend of the U.S. Thank you!” Such endorsements from high-ranking officials serve to reinforce the administration’s narrative of a unified front against what it perceives as a threat posed by illegal immigration and criminal elements.
C. The Impact on Trump’s Base
For Trump’s supporters, these actions are seen as a vindication of his hardline immigration policies. The use of the Alien Enemies Act and the dramatic language employed in his social media posts resonate with voters who feel that previous administrations have been too lenient on border security. This episode, therefore, reinforces Trump’s image as a leader willing to take bold—and sometimes controversial—steps to protect the nation.
V. President Bukele’s Response: A Detailed Look at the Video and Its Implications
A. The Stunning Video Footage
In an X post that quickly went viral, President Nayib Bukele shared video footage of the deported migrants arriving in El Salvador. The video, intended to be both shocking and illustrative, shows heavily armed Salvadoran police as they surround the deported individuals. The suspects, many of whom are believed to be involved in criminal activities and gang-related violence, are shown with their heads bowed and their hands behind their necks as they are escorted into a high-security facility.
Bukele’s decision to release this footage was deliberate. It served multiple purposes:
-
Intimidation and Control: By showing the rigorous measures taken to detain the suspects, Bukele aimed to demonstrate the strength and effectiveness of his government in combating organized crime.
-
Public Assurance: The video was intended to reassure Salvadoran citizens that their government was taking decisive action against criminal elements, thereby restoring a sense of order and safety.
-
Bilateral Cooperation: The footage also underscored the strong partnership between El Salvador and the United States in addressing shared security concerns.
B. The “Terrorism Confinement Center” and Prison System Reforms
In his accompanying post, Bukele explained that the deported migrants were transferred to what he called a “terrorism confinement center.” This facility is not a traditional prison but part of a broader strategy to rehabilitate offenders while simultaneously making the prison system self-sustainable. Bukele highlighted that:
-
Detainees would remain in the center for at least a year.
-
The center is part of a larger effort that includes over 40,000 inmates engaged in workshops and labor under the Zero Idleness program.
-
The reforms are designed to eventually reduce the annual cost of the prison system, which currently stands at approximately $200 million.
This multi-pronged approach—combining strict enforcement with efforts to reform and sustain the prison system—illustrates Bukele’s broader vision for security and governance. It also demonstrates a willingness to take unconventional steps to address systemic issues, an approach that has garnered both praise and criticism.
C. Intelligence Gathering and the Fight Against MS-13
Bukele’s post also emphasized that the apprehension of MS-13 gang members would aid in finalizing intelligence efforts to dismantle the notorious criminal network. He stated that the operation would help:
-
Track down remaining members of MS-13, including both former and new affiliates.
-
Seize money, weapons, drugs, and other resources that enable the gang to operate.
-
Identify collaborators and sponsors who contribute to the gang’s operations.
By framing the deportation as part of a broader intelligence-gathering mission, Bukele sought to position El Salvador as a proactive leader in the fight against organized crime. This narrative not only bolsters his domestic standing but also serves as a model for regional cooperation in tackling transnational criminal networks.
VI. Judicial Intervention and the Legal Ramifications
A. The Role of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg
In the midst of these dramatic developments, the judicial branch played a critical role. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered an immediate halt to further deportations of the alleged gang members. His ruling was based on procedural grounds—specifically, the fact that the deportation flights had already reached international airspace by the time the order was issued.
This judicial intervention highlights a critical tension: the need for swift executive action versus adherence to judicial processes and the rule of law. Judge Boasberg’s decision did not challenge the underlying policies but focused on the timing and procedural aspects, thereby temporarily stalling further removals under the contested legal framework.
B. White House and Legal Officials’ Defense of the Administration’s Actions
Following the judge’s order, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and other officials reiterated that the administration’s actions were lawful and that the judge’s order came too late to affect the already executed deportations. Leavitt stated, “The written order and the Administration’s actions do not conflict.” She further argued that a single judge in one city could not effectively control the movement of hundreds of individuals who had already been expelled from U.S. soil.
Legal experts remain divided on the issue. Some argue that the judge’s order underscores the need for clearer judicial oversight in immigration matters, while others view the administration’s actions as a necessary, if bold, exercise of executive power under extraordinary circumstances. This debate is likely to continue in the courts and in public discourse, reflecting broader ideological divides over immigration policy and the limits of executive authority.
C. Broader Constitutional Considerations
The use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context raises important constitutional questions. Critics argue that deporting individuals without a hearing violates the principles of due process. However, supporters contend that in cases involving national security and criminal activity, swift removal is essential to protecting the public. This tension between security and civil liberties is at the heart of many contemporary legal debates, and the current case is no exception. As the legal process unfolds, future rulings may further clarify the boundaries of executive power in immigration enforcement.
VII. Impact on U.S.-El Salvador Relations
A. Strengthening Bilateral Security Cooperation
President Bukele’s proactive measures and the visible demonstration of his government’s capabilities have significantly bolstered U.S.-El Salvador relations. By accepting the deported migrants and integrating them into a system that aims to both contain and rehabilitate criminal elements, El Salvador has signaled its willingness to collaborate closely with U.S. security efforts.
High-ranking U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have publicly praised Bukele’s actions. Rubio’s expression of gratitude—stating that Bukele is “the strongest security leader in our region” and a “great friend of the U.S.”—reflects a mutual recognition of shared security interests. This partnership is likely to lead to increased cooperation on intelligence sharing, border security, and countering transnational criminal organizations such as MS-13.
B. Economic and Social Dimensions
Beyond security, this episode has broader economic and social implications for both countries. For El Salvador, the integration of deported individuals into a reformed prison system—one that aims to become self-sustaining—could result in significant fiscal savings and improvements in public safety. Bukele’s strategy, which includes leveraging inmate labor and workshop programs, is designed not only to rehabilitate offenders but also to reduce the long-term costs of incarceration.
For the United States, the successful removal of individuals with serious criminal backgrounds is touted as a win for public safety and border control. However, the use of controversial legal statutes and the intense rhetoric surrounding the operation have also deepened political divisions and sparked debates over the balance between security and civil liberties.
C. Long-Term Strategic Implications
The events surrounding this deportation operation may have lasting effects on how the U.S. approaches its immigration enforcement policies, especially in collaboration with Latin American allies. As countries in the region face similar challenges with transnational gangs and criminal networks, coordinated efforts like these could become more common. The diplomatic fallout—both positive and negative—will likely influence future policy decisions, shaping the strategic landscape of U.S.-Central American relations for years to come.
VIII. Political and Media Reactions: A Polarized Landscape
A. Praise from the Trump Base
For many of President Trump’s supporters, this operation is a vindication of his hardline immigration policies. The dramatic language used by Trump and the emphasis on “incompetent Democrat leadership” resonate with a base that has long championed stricter border control and robust law enforcement. Social media platforms erupted with support for Trump’s tweet, and many echoed his sentiments, calling the operation a necessary step to protect American citizens.
B. Criticism from Political Opponents
On the other side of the political spectrum, critics argue that the deportations and the use of the Alien Enemies Act are emblematic of a dangerous overreach. Detractors assert that using an 18th-century law to justify modern immigration enforcement undermines the principles of due process and human rights. Prominent Democratic figures have condemned the rhetoric, calling it divisive and dehumanizing. They warn that such measures risk alienating vulnerable communities and exacerbating social tensions at a time when unity is crucial.
C. The Role of the Media in Shaping Perceptions
Media coverage of the event has been intense and varied. Some outlets have celebrated the deportations as a strong statement against criminality and lax immigration policies, while others have focused on the legal controversies and potential human rights implications. The polarized nature of the coverage reflects broader national debates over immigration policy, judicial oversight, and the limits of executive power. In this charged environment, every tweet, press release, and news segment contributes to shaping public opinion and influencing future policy debates.
IX. Broader Implications for U.S. Immigration Policy
A. A Shift Toward Hardline Enforcement
The use of the Alien Enemies Act in this instance signals a potential shift toward more hardline immigration enforcement strategies. By invoking an archaic statute, the Trump administration has set a precedent for bypassing traditional legal processes in favor of swift, decisive action. For supporters of such measures, this represents a bold step toward reclaiming control over U.S. borders and ensuring that individuals with criminal backgrounds are removed without delay.
B. Balancing Security with Due Process
However, the controversy also highlights the inherent tension between national security and individual rights. While swift enforcement is essential in certain contexts, it must be balanced with the constitutional guarantees of due process. The legal challenges and judicial interventions that followed this operation suggest that there is significant pushback from those who fear that such measures could lead to unchecked executive power. As policymakers continue to debate the merits and risks of these approaches, future administrations will need to navigate these complex legal and ethical waters carefully.
C. The Political Cost and Electoral Implications
Domestically, the use of such polarizing measures carries political risks. While they may energize a hardline base, they also have the potential to alienate moderate voters and exacerbate partisan divisions. The long-term impact on electoral outcomes remains uncertain, but the current episode is likely to be cited in future debates over immigration policy and national security. It serves as a reminder that policies enacted under the banner of security can have far-reaching consequences—not just in terms of public safety, but also in shaping the political landscape.
X. Comparative Perspectives: Historical and International Contexts
A. Historical Precedents in U.S. Immigration Enforcement
Throughout American history, immigration policy has been a contentious and evolving issue. Past administrations have often grappled with balancing national security concerns against the principles of freedom and due process. For example, during periods of war or national crisis, the U.S. government has at times implemented drastic measures—including internment and mass deportations—that have later been subject to intense scrutiny and regret. The current use of the Alien Enemies Act echoes these historical episodes, raising questions about the appropriate balance between security and civil liberties in modern times.
B. International Comparisons
Many other countries face similar challenges with transnational criminal organizations and illegal immigration. European nations, for instance, have adopted various strategies to address these issues, ranging from enhanced border controls to comprehensive integration policies. In some cases, governments have also invoked emergency powers or historical statutes to manage security threats. By comparing these approaches, we can gain insights into the potential benefits and pitfalls of relying on outdated legal frameworks in a modern context.
C. The Global Implications for Bilateral and Multilateral Cooperation
The collaboration between the United States and El Salvador in this operation highlights the importance of international cooperation in addressing shared security concerns. As countries grapple with similar issues—whether it’s the rise of violent gangs like MS-13 or the challenges of controlling migratory flows—the need for coordinated strategies becomes increasingly apparent. The partnership between Trump and Bukele may serve as a model for future cooperation, but it also raises questions about sovereignty, human rights, and the proper role of international law in domestic affairs.
XI. Future Directions: Policy, Legal Reforms, and Strategic Adjustments
A. Potential Legislative Reforms
In response to the controversies surrounding the use of the Alien Enemies Act and similar measures, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle may consider revisiting immigration reform. Proposals could include:
-
Clarifying the Scope of the Alien Enemies Act: Updating or repealing outdated provisions to ensure that they align with contemporary legal standards and human rights principles.
-
Enhancing Judicial Oversight: Implementing safeguards that balance rapid enforcement with the need for due process, ensuring that executive actions are subject to timely and effective judicial review.
-
Bipartisan Collaboration on Border Security: Encouraging dialogue between political parties to develop comprehensive, humane, and effective immigration policies that address both security concerns and the rights of individuals.
Such reforms could help bridge the divide between those who favor strict enforcement and those who advocate for a more balanced approach, ultimately fostering a more sustainable and just immigration system.
B. Strategic Adjustments by the Executive Branch
While legislative changes may take time, the executive branch also has opportunities to adjust its operational strategies. For example:
-
Refining Operational Guidelines: Agencies like ICE could introduce more nuanced guidelines for carrying out enforcement actions at sensitive locations, reducing the risk of public backlash while maintaining security.
-
Strengthening Intelligence and Interagency Coordination: By enhancing cooperation between federal, state, and local agencies, the administration can improve the effectiveness of its operations and ensure that enforcement measures are targeted and proportionate.
-
Improving Public Communication: Clear, consistent messaging about the rationale behind enforcement actions can help build public trust and mitigate the polarizing effects of controversial policies.
These adjustments may not resolve all the underlying legal and ethical debates, but they could help strike a better balance between rapid enforcement and the protection of civil liberties.
C. The Role of the Judiciary in Shaping Future Policy
Judicial rulings like that of Judge Boasberg will continue to play a crucial role in determining the limits of executive power. As courts review and challenge enforcement actions, their decisions will influence how far the government can go in using historical statutes to address modern challenges. Future cases may provide clearer guidelines on the application of the Alien Enemies Act and similar measures, potentially leading to a more defined legal framework for immigration enforcement.
XII. Conclusion: Navigating a Controversial Path Forward
The recent episode in which President Donald Trump thanked President Nayib Bukele for deporting suspected migrant criminals under the Alien Enemies Act is a vivid illustration of the complexities and controversies inherent in modern immigration policy. The operation, the ensuing legal challenges, and the stark political rhetoric that accompanied it reflect deep-seated divisions over how best to secure national borders while safeguarding individual rights.
On one hand, Trump’s use of the Act and his forceful language appeal to a base that values strong, decisive action on immigration. On the other, the legal interventions and critical responses from various quarters underscore the risks of relying on outdated legal frameworks that may conflict with modern constitutional principles.
This unfolding story is not just about deportations—it is about the broader questions of national security, executive authority, and international cooperation. It touches on the historical legacy of American immigration policy, the evolving challenges posed by transnational criminal organizations, and the difficult balance between enforcing the law and upholding the values of due process and human dignity.
For the United States, and for its allies like El Salvador, the current events offer both a cautionary tale and a potential blueprint for future collaboration. While the immediate fallout remains contentious, the long-term implications will likely shape immigration policy and bilateral relations for years to come.
As policymakers, legal experts, and citizens continue to debate these issues, one thing is clear: the path forward will require not only bold action but also thoughtful reflection on the principles that underpin our legal and political systems. It is a challenging road, but one that offers the opportunity to reimagine and reform the ways in which we address security, enforce laws, and build partnerships across borders.
In the end, this controversial use of the Alien Enemies Act—and the dramatic, polarizing reactions it has provoked—serves as a reminder that the issues surrounding immigration are deeply intertwined with our national identity. As the debate evolves, it will be incumbent upon all of us to engage in informed, nuanced discussions that balance the imperatives of security with the fundamental rights that define American democracy.
This in-depth analysis has explored the many facets of a highly contentious immigration enforcement action—from historical legal precedents and operational details to political rhetoric and international implications. As President Trump thanked President Bukele for his role in the deportations, the move not only reaffirmed a hardline approach to immigration but also set off a chain reaction of legal challenges, political debates, and strategic reassessments that are likely to influence U.S. policy and global security dynamics in the years ahead. In navigating this controversial path, the United States and its partners must balance decisive action with respect for the principles of due process and human dignity—ensuring that the measures taken today help build a safer, more just society for all.
