A new report by the United States National Intelligence Council categorically denies any connection between the Government of Nicolás Maduro and the extinct criminal group known as “Aragua Train”, which contradicts the central argument used by the Trump administration and the opposition of the extreme right right María Corina Machado to justify mass deportations of Venezuelan migrants without legal guarantees.
The document, to which the American media had access The Washington Post And reviewed by the Telesur web portal was unanimously backed by the 18 American intelligence agencies – except the FBI, which maintains moderate reservations – concludes that there is no evidence that the extinct train of Aragua would continue to operate and do so under orders of Caracas.
This is the second evaluation in two months that contradicts the statements of President Donald Trump, who in March invoked the 1798 foreign enemies law to deport hundreds of Venezuelans accused of belonging to the group, sending them to a megacárcel in El Salvador.
Trump’s justification was based on the theory that Aragua’s train is part of an “invasion” directed by Maduro, an argument repeated by figures such as Secretary of State Framework Rubio and Machado.
Based on this justification, the US government invoked the Law of Foreign Enemies, last used during World War II to imprison 110,000 Japanese-State and that allows us to deport or arrest foreigners without due process if their country of origin is at war with the US or performs a “predatory incursion.” Legal experts underline that the rule requires a clear bond with a foreign government, something that the report denies.
“The idea that Maduro directs the Aragua train and sends criminals to infiltrate in the US is absurd,” said Geoff Ramsey, an expert in Venezuela from Atlantic Council. “The group operates more as a decentralized brand than as a hierarchical structure.”
Faced with The Washington Post’s questions, the office of the National Intelligence Director, Tulsi Gabbard, called the work report of “Deep State actors” – the term used by Trump allies to refer to officials who supposedly undermine his agenda. In a statement, the White House defended deportations as a measure to “protect the US from terrorists,” without providing evidence.
Rhetoric clashes with testimonies about deportees. According to human rights lawyers, many detainees did not even have a criminal record. “They were arrested for their nationality, not for evidence,” said Ana Ortega, representative of the Venezuelan NGO in exile.
Shock with the Judiciary
Federal judge James E. Boasberg, from Washington DC, ordered in March to stop deportations and return the deportees, but the administration ignored the order and sent more than 200 Venezuelans to El Salvador. Boasberg threatened to initiate processes for contempt against officials, warning that disobeying judicial orders “makes a mockería of the Constitution.”
The White House insists on having complied with the law, but critics indicate a pattern of confrontation with the judicial system. “It is a dangerous escalation: the executive cannot ignore the judges,” said Laura Gómez, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard.
The last novelty in this regard Data last Wednesday, April 16, when the federal judge of the Columbia district determined that there are foundations to declare in criminal contempt of the administration of Donald Trump for disobeying a court order that prohibited deportation of more than two hundred migrants to the Megacárcel of El Salvador.
