Trump’s ‘State Secrets’ claim over deportation flight details sparks legal and political controversy

The Justice Department’s decision to invoke the rarely used state secrets privilege in a bid to withhold details about two deportation flights has intensified an already contentious legal battle over the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This extraordinary move has raised concerns about government transparency and the limits of executive power.

The dispute stems from President Donald Trump’s contested use of the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of individuals allegedly associated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. US District Judge James Boasberg, who is overseeing a legal challenge to Trump’s application of this wartime authority, has demanded details about two deportation flights that took place on March 15—the same day he ordered an immediate halt to such removals.

Despite the court’s mandate, the administration allowed these flights to proceed and has since resisted Boasberg’s attempts to obtain more information. Now, the Justice Department has taken an even more aggressive stance by invoking the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine that allows the government to withhold information deemed too sensitive for public disclosure.

The state secrets privilege has historically been used to prevent national security risks but has also been a subject of controversy. The doctrine, first formally recognized in the 1953 Supreme Court case United States v. Reynolds, was intended to safeguard sensitive intelligence operations. However, critics argue that it has sometimes been used to conceal government misconduct rather than protect legitimate national security interests.

In this case, the Trump administration asserts that revealing details about the deportation flights would jeopardize national security and diplomatic efforts. Attorney General Pam Bondi and other top Justice Department officials contend that disclosing the information would “endanger government personnel” and compromise counterterrorism operations. However, legal experts and critics are questioning whether the information being withheld—such as flight departure times—truly constitutes a state secret.

National security lawyer Mark Zaid, an expert in state secrets cases, characterized the administration’s move as an unusually bold assertion. “This is a bolder assertion than what the Executive Branch normally takes,” Zaid said. “I see this as an effort to use the privilege as a shield instead of a sword because they have run out of options.”

Similarly, George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin described the privilege claim as “bogus,” pointing out that much of the flight information is already publicly available and has even been publicly discussed by administration officials.

Judge Boasberg has expressed skepticism about the administration’s justification for invoking the privilege. In a recent order, he noted that the government has not claimed the information in question is classified and pointed out that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had publicly shared details about the flights.

The judge now faces a critical decision: whether to accept the administration’s invocation of the privilege or push for further disclosure. He could demand an in-camera review—where he examines the documents privately—to determine if the state secrets claim is justified. Alternatively, he may rule that the administration’s refusal to comply with his initial order constitutes a violation, potentially leading to legal consequences for the government.

Attorneys representing the individuals challenging Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act have until Monday to respond to the government’s claim of privilege. Meanwhile, the broader question of whether Trump’s oral order to halt deportation flights is legally binding remains unresolved.

Historically, courts have often deferred to the executive branch when it invokes state secrets. However, the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in the Abu Zubaydah case showed that even widely known information could still be protected under this doctrine. Given this precedent, the outcome of Boasberg’s review could set a significant legal precedent regarding the limits of presidential power and the transparency of government actions.

As this legal battle unfolds, it underscores a recurring tension in American governance: the balance between national security and government accountability. With Trump’s unprecedented use of the Alien Enemies Act and the Justice Department’s invocation of state secrets, the coming weeks could prove pivotal in defining the boundaries of executive authority in the modern era.