In a surprising statement, President Donald Trump stunned reporters and ignited fresh controversy after claiming he did not personally sign a recent presidential proclamation invoking the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act to facilitate the rapid deportation of Venezuelan migrants allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang. During a press conference on Friday, when asked about why the proclamation was signed "in the dark," Trump flatly responded, "I didn't sign it." He further added, "Other people handled it. Marco Rubio's done a great job. He wanted them out, and we go along with that."
The unexpected denial set off a wave of confusion, particularly as the proclamation, now posted on the official Federal Register website, clearly displays Trump's digital signature. The executive order designates the Tren de Aragua, a violent Venezuelan gang, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, giving the administration sweeping powers to quickly deport suspected members without standard immigration or criminal proceedings.
Legal experts and commentators quickly raised concerns about Trump's comments. CNN analyst Elie Honig noted, "If Donald Trump did not actually sign that proclamation, it's a big problem because the law specifically requires a proclamation by the president." The remark gained further traction on social media, where users pointed out Trump's past attacks on President Biden for using an autopen—a mechanical device that replicates a person's signature—on official documents. "Trump just said he didn't sign his own EO? This is the guy who claimed Biden's autopen use voided pardons, but he's okay with someone else signing his executive order?" one post on X read.
The controversy deepened when Judge James Boasberg raised the matter earlier in the day during a federal court hearing. Boasberg questioned why the order was signed "essentially in the dark" on the evening of March 14 and why deportation flights began early on March 15, suggesting an apparent rush to implement the order before facing legal scrutiny. Critics argue this strategy was a deliberate attempt to sidestep due process for the migrants.
Amid the uproar, the White House issued a clarification. Communications Director Steven Cheung said Trump's remarks were a misunderstanding and that he was referencing the original Alien Enemies Act passed in 1798. "The recent Executive Order was personally signed by President Trump," Cheung insisted. He added that the order was essential in combatting criminal threats and aligning with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's recommendations.
Yet, the explanation did little to quell the public skepticism. Many pointed to Trump's repeated disdain for autopens and his insistence that presidential documents should bear authentic signatures. Trump had previously argued that President Biden's autopen-signed pardons should be invalidated, fueling speculation that the former president might have quietly used the same tool himself.
While the Justice Department has long maintained that autopen signatures are legally valid on executive actions, Trump's prior statements have now added a layer of irony and controversy to the current situation. The administration's reliance on the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime law dating back to 1798, is also facing multiple legal challenges. Opponents argue that the act's invocation was hasty and designed to bypass standard legal protections afforded to migrants. Some deported individuals reportedly had no U.S. criminal records, raising further concerns about due process violations.
Pressed by reporters on whether deportations will continue despite an ongoing court battle, Trump deflected, saying, "I'd have the secretary of state handle it." He again praised Rubio, asserting, "Murderers, rapists, drug dealers—these are really bad people. I ran on that. I won on that."
The unfolding situation underscores growing tensions over immigration enforcement, executive authority, and transparency within the Trump administration. Critics, legal scholars, and immigrant rights groups continue to scrutinize the process, questioning both the legality and ethics of the administration's actions.
