Guantanamo

My report about the latest horrors in the “war on migrants” declared by Donald Trump when he took office two months ago, focused on his inappropriate invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport migrants, which also involved him flagrantly ignoring a temporary restraining order issued by a federal court judge preventing the use of the Act, and immediately sending 238 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, along with 23 alleged Salvadorian gang members, to be imprisoned in the notorious CECOT “mega-prison”, established by El Salvador’s hardline President Nayib Bukele. This unconscionable off-shoring — for money — of migrants to a reviled prison in another country took place, as with Trump’s recent use of Guantánamo to hold migrants, without any evidence having been provided to back up the administration’s assertions that these men were members of the notorious Tren de Aragua gang, with stories emerging, as at Guantánamo, that they were nothing more than men who had sought to get to the US to secure work, and that the entire basis of their alleged gang membership is a result of sweeping and imprecise assessments of the significance of their tattoos.

Photos from, and my report about the coordinated monthly global vigils for the closure of Guantánamo that took place across the US and in London, Brussels and Mexico City on March 5, 2025. The “First Wednesday” vigils have been taking place on the first Wednesday of every month for the last two years, and are, of course, continuing under Donald Trump, after he has cynically, cruelly and illegally decided to use the prison to hold migrants as part of the racist “war on migrants” that he declared when he took office.

My report about an important lawsuit submitted to the District Court in Washington, D.C. by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), asking the Court to urgently intervene to “put a stop” to what they accurately describe as the Trump administration’s “cruel, unnecessary and illegal transfers” of migrants to the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The lawsuit was submitted on behalf of ten named individuals — seven Venezuelans, an Afghan, a Pakistani and a Bangladeshi — who are currently being held in immigration detention facilities in Texas, Virginia and Arizona run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but who legitimately fear being sent to Guantánamo. The lawyers correctly argue that, even though the men’s asylum claims were ultimately unsuccessful, and they have all been subjected to “final removal” orders, they are still protected by the US Constitution, and by US law; specifically, the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Regarding the Constitution, the lawyers argue that the transfers and detention of the migrants at Guantánamo “violate due process under the Fifth Amendment because the transfers are undertaken for punitive, illegitimate reasons and the conditions in which the detainees are housed are unconstitutional.” It is to be hoped that the Court arranges a hearing soon, and that the judge recognizes the illegality of the Trump administration’s actions, and can act to stop it.

Following up on a compelling Washington Post article featuring interviews with three of the 127 Venezuelan migrants held in Camp 6 of the “war on terror” prison at Guantánamo Bay between February 4 and February 20, when they were repatriated (although only to be replaced by new arrivals from the US mainland), I note how alarming it is to hear about the brutality and dehumanization to which they were subjected, including invasive strip-searches, a ban on almost all outdoor recreation time, a ban on all contact with the outside world, and an atmosphere that was so oppressive that a number of them tried to kill themselves. I discuss how the rhetoric about them being “the worst of the worst” seems to be entirely unfounded, and ask, above all, one burning question: who authorized these conditions of confinement, more punitive than those implemented since the early days of the “war on terror”? I note that military guards don’t act autonomously, and that, therefore, their actions must be dictated by the “Standard Operating Procedures” (SOPs) put in place since Trump’s cynical and cruel “war on migrants” began, which need to be publicly revealed.

I celebrate the welcome news that Donald Trump’s use of Guantánamo to hold Venezuelan migrants as part of his cynical and cruel “war on migrants” seems to have come to an abrupt end, less than a month since it was first announced. On Thursday, 178 men were held in total — 51 in the existing Migrant Operations Center, established in the 1990s to hold migrants intercepted at sea, and 127 in Camp 6 of the “war on terror” prison. While the legality of the entire enterprise was extremely dubious, the use of Camp 6 was glaringly illegal, as the legislation establishing the prison’s existence in January 2002 (the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force) only ever justified its use for those seized in connection with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces, with specific reference to the 9/11 attacks. On Thursday, after a court hearing in response to a challenge by rights groups including the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, all but one of these men were flown back to Venezuela via Honduras, with the remaining man flown back to detention on the US mainland. It is to be hoped that this is the end of this particularly malign and lawless project, and that it was meant to be an act of “performative cruelty” on Trump’s part to appeal to his base, but it is, sadly, all too typical of an administration that, on as many fronts as possible, is intent on pushing a narrative that the president should be able to do whatever he wants, unrestrained by any of the checks and balances on presidential power that are part of the Constitution.

My detailed analysis of the latest disturbing news regarding Donald Trump’s “war on migrants”, and, specifically, his use of Guantánamo, where, as of February 12, 98 Venezuelan migrants had been sent from the US mainland, with 45 of them being held in the Migrant Operations Center used since the 1990s, and 53 in Camp 6 of the notorious “war on terror” prison, after the three remaining “low-value detainees” — all long approved for release, but still held — were moved into the neighboring Camp 5, where the other remaining prisoners, 12 “high-value detainees”, are also held. The legality of sending any migrant from the US mainland to Guantánamo is extremely dubious, but it is beyond doubt that holding any of these men in the “war on terror” prison is absolutely illegal, because the authorization for holding prisoners there, passed after the 9/11 attacks, stipulates that they can only be people accused of involvement with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces, in connection with 9/11. Framing this in the context of Trump’s wider “war on migrants”, I analyze the cynical comparisons being deliberately made with the “war on terror”, I examine the lawsuit submitted last week seeking access to the prison for lawyers representing the migrants, and I also examine the stories that have emerged of three of these men, which reveal the same sweeping generalizations and distortions that were used to demonize Muslims in the “war on terror.” As with the almost entirely non-existent terrorists at Guantánamo, beginning 23 years ago, the migrants seem not to be “the worst of the worst”, as the Trump administration suggests, but entirely unconnected with any kind of criminal activity — one being a car mechanic, and another a barber — who were doing nothing more than trying, with the odds stacked against them, as for so many migrants, simply to get into the US to work.

Photos from, and my report about the coordinated monthly global vigils for the closure of Guantánamo that took place across the US and in London, Brussels and Mexico City on February 5, 2025, and the week after. The vigils have been taking place on the first Wednesday of every month for the last two years, and will continue under Donald Trump, especially as he has now shocked the world by illegally sending migrants to the prison as part of the vile “war on migrants” that he launched when he took office.

In a disturbing development involving Guantánamo and Donald Trump’s “war on migrants”, it has emerged that ten Venezuelans seized on the US mainland and flown to Guantánamo are not being held in the migrant detention facility that has been used for migrants intercepted at sea since the 1990s, but are being held instead in Camp 6 of the “war on terror” prison, established in 2002. While the legality of sending migrants to the Guantánamo naval base has not been established, it is abundantly clear that no authority whatsoever exists to justify imprisoning migrants in the “war on terror” prison — even those, like these men, who are accused of involvement in the Tren de Aragua gang, designated as a terrorist group. As the Center for Victims of Torture explained in an important briefing yesterday, only those allegedly involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces, in connection with the 9/11 attacks, can be held at Guantánamo according to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which justified its creation. As CVT added, the AUMF “does not authorize military detention of migrants, criminals or anyone broadly designated as a ‘terrorist’ or member of a Foreign Terrorist Organization.” As lawyers begin to prepare legal challenges, it seems inconceivable that the Trump administration can defend its actions — but these are such troubling times that nothing about the law seems certain anymore, as Trump seeks to position himself as thoroughly unaccountable.

My detailed examination of Donald Trump’s cynical and provocative announcement, last week, that he had issued an executive order for the massive expansion of an existing migrant detention facility on the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay to hold 30,000 migrants as part of a monstrous “war on migrants” that has been unfolding since he took office just two weeks ago. I look at how Trump drew on the use of the facility to hold, at one point, 25,000 Haitian and Cuban migrants in the 1990s, and also at how he is using the proximity of the nearby “war on terror” prison to suggest that the migrants are “terrorists”, who should be held without rights, and how officials in his administration have reinforced this notion by describing those to be sent to the facility as “the worst of the worst.” I also examine the deeply troubling legal basis — or the lack of it — when it comes to holding migrants at Guantánamo, which has long been used by the US government as a “law-free zone”, and question who it is intended for, when Trump has already massively expanded the use of “expedited removal” to allow immigration enforcement agents in the US to remove undocumented migrants and send them back to their home countries without being able to meet with a lawyer or have any kind of immigration hearing. This is especially troubling as reports emerge of the first arrivals at the migrant facility, and I wonder, in particular, if Trump will, as I describe it, seek to create “a new law that would explicitly endorse holding undocumented migrants at Guantánamo indefinitely on the basis that they pose a direct threat to the US and its security as ‘invaders’ or ‘terrorists.’”

The video of the powerful and poignant online discussion about Guantánamo, hosted by New America, which took place on January 14, marking the 23rd anniversary of the opening of the prison three days earlier, featuring myself, Tom Wilner and Karen Greenberg, and moderated by Peter Bergen. Also included: a link to my one-hour interview with the activist Margaret Flowers for her “Clearing the FOG” podcast on Popular Resistance.