Defense Department, Not DHS, Blamed for Deportations

Defense Department, Not DHS, Blamed for Deportations \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Department of Homeland Security denies violating a court order limiting deportations to third countries, claiming the Pentagon—not DHS—conducted the removals. The legal filing follows a judge’s injunction to protect deportees from potential torture or death. Four individuals were sent to El Salvador after the order, but DHS says it wasn’t responsible.

Quick Looks

• Court Order Issued: Judge Murphy blocked third-country deportations on March 28
• Legal Argument: DHS says deportations were handled by the Department of Defense
• Affected Individuals: Four migrants sent to El Salvador after the court order
• Key Exception: Defense Department not named in the lawsuit
• Timing Details: Some removals happened before or just before the order was issued
• ICE Involvement: DHS claims it didn’t coordinate or authorize the deportations
• Destination Disclosure: Migrants must be informed and allowed to object under ruling
• Venezuelan Deportations: Sent to El Salvador via Alien Enemies Act
• Guantanamo Holding: Migrants were held at Guantanamo before deportation
• DHS Affidavit: Sworn statement supports DHS’s non-involvement claim

Deep Look

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is pushing back against allegations that it violated a federal court order restricting deportations to third-party countries. In a newly filed court document, DHS attorneys argue that it was the Department of Defense—not Homeland Security—that carried out several contested deportations following the judge’s injunction.

At the heart of the legal clash is a March 28 ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, which blocked the Trump administration from deporting migrants to countries other than their homeland unless the individuals are properly informed of the destination and given the opportunity to object if they fear torture or death.

The Court Order and Its Scope

Judge Murphy’s order was designed to protect asylum seekers and migrants from being relocated to potentially dangerous third countries without due process or notice. The order emphasized that any individual facing deportation must be informed of the destination and provided a chance to file objections under the Convention Against Torture or related human rights protections.

Murphy’s ruling stemmed from growing concern over Trump-era deportation policies—particularly the administration’s use of alternative countries like Panama or El Salvador to house individuals from countries that do not accept U.S. deportees, such as Venezuela.

Defense Department Deported Migrants, DHS Claims

In Wednesday’s legal filing, Justice Department attorney Mary Larakers argued that DHS cannot be held accountable for deportations conducted by the Department of Defense (DoD).

Larakers said that four migrants were flown to El Salvador on March 31—three days after the restraining order was issued—but the transfer was carried out by the Defense Department, not DHS or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“DHS officials were not on the flight and did not direct the removals,” Larakers wrote, adding that the Pentagon is not a named defendant in the lawsuit.

Timing and Technicalities

Larakers further clarified the timeline for two additional deportations to Mexico. One occurred three days before the court order was handed down, and the other happened on the morning of March 28, several hours before the injunction took effect.

In the latter case, ICE agents allegedly asked the deportee if he feared returning to Mexico. According to DHS’s documentation, the individual answered no, which, under current law, satisfies the requirement for voluntary repatriation absent a legal objection.

Sworn Statement Backs DHS Account

To reinforce DHS’s argument, the agency submitted a sworn affidavit from Tracy Huettl, a senior DHS official. Huettl stated that the individuals deported to El Salvador had been:

• Convicted of crimes in the U.S.
• Ordered removed by immigration judges
• Held in ICE custody before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay

At Guantanamo, the individuals were held in detention before being flown out by Defense Department aircraft, Huettl testified.

This use of Guantanamo Bay as a holding facility for deportees under the Alien Enemies Act is part of a controversial Trump-era policy that has drawn criticism from immigration advocates and legal scholars alike.

Third-Country Deportation Policy Under Fire

At the core of the legal challenge is the Trump administration’s expanded use of third-country deportations, particularly for Venezuelan nationals and others from countries with strained diplomatic relations or failed-state conditions.

Since some governments refuse to accept deportees, Trump’s team brokered agreements with countries like Panama, El Salvador, and Guatemala to house individuals deemed national security threats or “inadmissible aliens” under emergency legal authority, such as the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

This practice has sparked human rights concerns, especially in cases where migrants fear violence, persecution, or torture in the receiving country.

Legal Grey Area: Who’s Responsible?

The latest DHS argument hinges on a jurisdictional technicality—that the Department of Defense is not a party to the lawsuit and therefore not bound by the judge’s injunction.

While Judge Murphy’s order explicitly applies to DHS and ICE, it remains unclear whether Defense Department participation in removals creates a loophole or legal conflict. Lawyers for the plaintiffs may soon push for clarification or expansion of the court’s order to include all agencies involved in deportation logistics.

The court has not yet responded to the new filings, but a follow-up hearing is expected soon.

More on US News