When former—and now returned—President Donald J. Trump said during a public appearance in April 2025 that he would like to deport “homegrown criminals” to “a gulag in El Salvador,” he did more than float another authoritarian talking point. He triggered a constitutional crisis in waiting, directly attacked the fundamental principles of citizenship, and revealed his continued willingness to dismantle human rights and the rule of law for political expediency. The quote—“I’d like to go a step further. I said to Pam, I don’t know what the laws are, we always have to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways … I’d like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country”—may sound like hyperbole. It is not.
This statement must be examined through three critical lenses: constitutional law, judicial precedent, and moral reasoning. Together, these frameworks expose just how dangerous and legally impossible such a proposition is—and how it betrays both the spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitutional Bedrock: Citizenship Is Not Conditional
The United States Constitution does not allow for the deportation of citizens. Period. Trump’s statement is incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment, which affirms birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law. Section 1 of the Amendment reads:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1)
Once citizenship is conferred, whether by birth or naturalization, it cannot be arbitrarily revoked or nullified, especially not by executive fiat. In Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress cannot strip a person of citizenship without their consent. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, concluded:
“Citizenship is no light trifle to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the umbrella of the ‘foreign affairs power’” (Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 1967).
The precedent makes it unequivocally clear: American citizenship is a constitutional guarantee. Deporting an American citizen would not only violate the Fourteenth Amendment but also ignore clear judicial precedent. There is no exception for citizens who commit crimes—those individuals are held accountable under the domestic criminal justice system, not shipped to foreign prison camps.
Judicial Rejection of Executive Overreach
Trump’s offhand remark, “I don’t know what the laws are,” should concern every constitutionalist, regardless of party. It reveals either a willful ignorance of the law or a calculated testing of the public’s tolerance for authoritarian rhetoric.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Supreme Court addressed the detention of an American citizen classified as an “enemy combatant.” Even in this extreme case involving national security, the Court ruled that due process must apply. Justice O’Connor stated:
“A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens” (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 2004).
Even in cases of suspected terrorism, the Court has maintained that American citizens are entitled to constitutional protections. Trump’s suggestion that he could potentially bypass these protections by deporting citizens to El Salvador not only lacks legal standing but would constitute unlawful extrajudicial punishment—a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” (U.S. Const. amend. VIII).
Additionally, the Geneva Conventions prohibit the transfer of persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to any other country. Though the U.S. is not at war with itself, the underlying principle—that forced relocation to a hostile carceral environment violates human rights—applies. Gulags, by definition, are extrajudicial prison camps characterized by torture, forced labor, and systemic abuse. Any effort by a U.S. president to participate in such a scheme would constitute a violation of international law, likely rising to the level of a crime against humanity.
Executive Power Is Not Above the Constitution
Trump has long flirted with the idea of a presidency unencumbered by law. His repeated assertions of absolute immunity from prosecution, defiance of congressional subpoenas, and pardons of political allies form a pattern of executive overreach. But the Constitution draws a clear boundary.
Article II does not authorize the president to override judicial process, alter criminal sentencing, or relocate individuals to foreign nations as punishment. The president’s role in the criminal justice system is limited to enforcement—not judgment. Deporting citizens to foreign gulags would not only violate due process but also collapse the wall between the executive and judiciary.
As Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) made clear, a president acting contrary to congressional intent and without constitutional authority acts at “the lowest ebb” of their power. Justice Jackson’s concurrence set the gold standard for evaluating executive authority:
“When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb” (Youngstown, 343 U.S. 579, 1952).
In no federal statute has Congress authorized the president to deport citizens for subway shoving—or any other domestic crime. Trump’s words are incompatible with the Constitution, the judiciary, and the legislative process. They should be recognized as the dangerous authoritarian fantasies they are.
Morality and the Myth of “Homegrown Criminals”
Beyond legal impossibility, Trump’s remarks are morally bankrupt. His use of the term “homegrown criminals” echoes the rhetoric of fascist regimes, which often depict domestic dissent or social unrest as a kind of internal contagion to be expunged. In Nazi Germany, for instance, Hitler routinely referred to Jews and Roma as “degenerates” and “subhuman threats” to society—language that rationalized deportation and extermination (Snyder, 2017).
By implying that certain Americans are less deserving of citizenship, Trump resurrects the logic of eugenics, redlining, and Jim Crow. His comment targets the poor, the mentally ill, and disproportionately, people of color—those most often arrested for “shoving people into subways,” a phrase itself loaded with racialized fearmongering.
There is a dangerous moral slope to suggesting that criminality removes one’s right to belong in the nation. If Trump believes that crime should disqualify people from American protection, then what of his own 91 felony indictments, ongoing trials, or confessed sexual assaults? What of his companies’ criminal convictions for tax fraud (Fendelman, 2023)? What of his false electors scheme and incitement of the January 6 insurrection? The selective morality is not just hypocritical—it is calculated propaganda.
Deportation to El Salvador: A Human Rights Catastrophe
Even if we suspend disbelief and assume a scenario where the U.S. attempted to partner with El Salvador for such detentions, it would be a flagrant violation of multiple international treaties. El Salvador’s prison system, under the regime of Nayib Bukele, has faced international scrutiny for human rights violations including torture, arbitrary detention, and inhumane conditions (Human Rights Watch, 2023).
To deport a U.S. citizen to such a system would be a betrayal of every democratic principle. It would also violate the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits states from returning individuals to countries where they face a substantial risk of torture (Convention Against Torture, 1984).
Historical Precedents and the Perils of Silence
American history offers chilling parallels. During World War II, the U.S. government forcibly relocated over 120,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps without due process. This mass violation of civil liberties was later condemned by Congress and led to reparations under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.
In Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court initially upheld the relocation. But in 2018, Chief Justice Roberts disavowed it:
“Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided… It has no place in law under the Constitution” (Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___, 2018).
We must heed that lesson. Flirtations with mass deportation—even rhetorically—must be stopped in their tracks. History shows that constitutional violations begin as rhetorical outrages and end in irrevocable human suffering.
Wrapping It Up: The Republic or the Gulag?
Trump’s statement is not merely offensive—it is unconstitutional, illegal, and morally grotesque. If we accept such language as political bluster, we normalize fascism. If we shrug and say “he didn’t really mean it,” we abdicate the responsibility of civic vigilance. The road to authoritarianism is paved not with tanks but with tolerance for abuses of power.
It is not enough to say, “we always have to obey the laws,” and then fantasize about violating them. It is not enough to whisper, “I don’t know what the laws are,” while holding the most powerful office in the land.
The president is not a king. He cannot revoke citizenship. He cannot deport Americans. And he cannot send people to die in gulags for the crime of being human in a country he does not understand.
We must respond not with fear but with fidelity—to the Constitution, to the judiciary, and to each other.
References
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. (1984). United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1465.
Fendelman, C. (2023). Trump Org. guilty on all counts in tax fraud trial. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).
Human Rights Watch. (2023). El Salvador: Widespread abuse in gang crackdown. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/09/el-salvador-widespread-abuse-gang-crackdown
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
Snyder, T. (2017). On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Tim Duggan Books.
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018).
U.S. Const. amend. VIII.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
