US threatens Venezuela: Accept deportees or face sanctions
7 Min Read
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warns that Washington will impose new sanctions on Venezuela if it refuses to accept its deported citizens.
-
In this photo provided by El Salvador's presidential press office, a prison guard transfers deportees from the US, alleged to be Venezuelan gang members, to the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, Sunday, March 16, 2025. (El Salvador presidential press office via AP)
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Washington will impose new sanctions on Venezuela if it refuses to accept its deported citizens.
"Venezuela is obligated to accept its repatriated citizens from the US. This is not an issue for debate or negotiation. Nor does it merit any reward. Unless the Maduro regime accepts a consistent flow of deportation flights, without further excuses or delays, the US will impose new, severe, and escalating sanctions," Rubio stated on X on Tuesday.
His remarks come amid escalating tensions between Washington and Caracas after the US deported over 250 alleged members of the Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua to El Salvador. Venezuelan authorities condemned the move and refused to take them back.
On his part, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced on Monday that he would request the United Nations to protect the rights of Venezuelan immigrants deported to an El Salvador prison, under the pretext that they are gang members.
"Today I am signing a series of communications for the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for the High Commissioner for Human Rights" and other bodies to activate "human rights mechanisms to protect Venezuelan men and women," Maduro stated on his state television program.
Over the weekend, the US flew more than 200 individuals, allegedly members of a Venezuelan gang, to be imprisoned in El Salvador after US President Donald Trump invoked wartime legislation to expel them.
On Sunday, Venezuela's government blasted the US implementation of the rarely used wartime law.
"Venezuela rejects the application of an anachronistic law, illegal and in violation of human rights, against our migrants," Venezuela's government said in a statement, adding its "profound indignation at the threat of kidnapping 14-year-old children."
Under such circumstances, the Venezuelan government called on the international community, especially the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), to mobilize against what it called a dangerous precedent against the entire region.
Despite a federal judge temporarily suspending the expulsion order, the deportations proceeded, leading to speculation that the Trump administration deliberately defied the court's decision.
El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele confirmed that 238 members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which Trump has labeled a foreign "terrorist" organization, had arrived in the country.
He posted a video on X showing the men, shackled and handcuffed, being transferred from the plane to a heavily guarded convoy. The presidency also shared images of the prisoners having their heads shaved upon arrival.
Maduro vowed to have his "kidnapped" compatriots repatriated, insisting they were "not criminals".
"I will not rest until we achieve their rescue and their safe return," he declared.
The head of Venezuela's parliament called the deportations a "crime against humanity."
Judge scolds DOJ lawyer for dodging Alien Enemies Act questions
A federal court battle is unfolding over the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law, to deport individuals it claims are members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The law, which grants the president authority to expel immigrants from "hostile" nations during war or invasion, has not been invoked since 1941.
During a heated hearing on Monday, US District Judge James Boasberg pressed a Justice Department attorney on why the administration did not comply with his order to temporarily halt deportations and questioned why key details about flights over the weekend were being withheld. Boasberg described the administration’s stance as, “We don’t care, we’ll do what we want.”
Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli defended the administration’s actions, arguing it had followed Boasberg’s written order, which came hours after his oral ruling on Saturday. He asserted that the written directive took precedence, stating, “We believe that we’ve complied with the order.”
Dive deeper
Boasberg dismissed that reasoning, responding, “An order is an order" and criticized the government for disregarding his initial ruling. He also pushed for specifics on the deportation flights—such as how many there were and whether any were in the air—but Kambli refused to disclose details, citing national security concerns.
“I am only authorized to say what we have said” in court filings, Kambli stated. The filing in question argued that the case “cannot be used to interfere with the President’s national-security and foreign affairs authority, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.”
Frustrated by the lack of transparency, Boasberg ordered Kambli to provide answers by noon Tuesday and to submit an official explanation for why the information was withheld in court. “If the government takes the position that it will not provide that information to the Court under any circumstances, it must support such position, including with classified authorities if necessary,” he ruled. After the hearing, he issued a written order with those questions, adding that the government’s response may be “sealed in part, if necessary.” Another hearing is scheduled for Friday.
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs alongside Democracy Forward, warned of the broader implications. “What changes here … is the government’s apparent refusal to abide by the federal court’s power. Our country is based on the assumption that there are three equal branches … Once that ends, we’re in a very different situation in this country; we’re no longer a country based on the rule of law,” he said.
Wider context
Shortly before the hearing, the Justice Department sent a letter to a federal appeals court seeking to remove Boasberg from the case, arguing he had compromised national security by scrutinizing the administration’s deportation initiative. “The Government cannot—and will not—be forced to answer sensitive questions of national security and foreign relations in a rushed posture,” the letter stated. It further argued that the judge’s inquiry posed “grave risks to the conduct of the Government in areas wholly unsuited to micromanagement supervision by a district court judge.”
The legal battle follows Boasberg’s emergency ruling on Saturday, which temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting individuals under the Alien Enemies Act.
During that hearing, he ordered a Justice Department lawyer to “immediately” inform officials that any planes carrying deportees must return to the United States. However, the government later acknowledged in a Sunday filing that “some gang members subject to removal under the Proclamation had already been removed from United States territory” before the order was issued.
Boasberg emphasized Saturday that compliance was mandatory. “However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone … I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.”
Hours before Monday’s hearing, the Justice Department attempted to have it vacated, arguing that questions about flight locations “implicate sensitive questions of national security, foreign relations, and coordination with foreign nations” that were “neither material nor appropriate.”
However, the judge proceeded, signaling an intensifying legal standoff over the administration’s use of emergency deportation powers.
