Entrance of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia. File photo.
A new report from the US National Intelligence Council categorically denies any connection between Nicolás Maduro’s government in Venezuela and the now-defunct criminal group known as the Tren de Aragua (TDA). The report contradicts the central argument used by the US administration and Venezuelan far-right opposition leader María Corina Machado to justify mass deportations of Venezuelan migrants without legal protections.
The document, published by The Washington Post and reviewed by the Telesur news agency, was unanimously supported by all 18 US intelligence agencies—except the FBI, which maintains moderate reservations—and concludes there is no evidence that the defunct Tren de Aragua operates under orders from Caracas.
This is the second assessment in two months to contradict these claims made by President Donald Trump, who in March invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport hundreds of Venezuelans accused of belonging to Tren de Aragua, sending them to a mega-prison in El Salvador without due process.
Trump’s justification relied on the theory that the Tren de Aragua was part of an “invasion” led by Maduro—an argument echoed by far-right actors such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Machado.
Using this rationale, the US government invoked the Alien Enemies Act, last employed during World War II to imprison 110,000 Japanese-Americans. The law permits deporting or detaining foreigners without due process if their home country is at war with the US or conducts a “predatory incursion.” Legal experts note the law requires a clear foreign government link, which the report explicitly refutes.
“The idea that Maduro runs the Tren de Aragua and sends criminals to infiltrate the US is absurd,” said Geoffrey Ramsey, a Venezuela analyst at the Atlantic Council. “The group operates more as a decentralized brand than a hierarchical structure.”
In response to questions from The Washington Post, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, dismissed the report as the work of “deep state actors”—a term Trump allies use for officials allegedly undermining his agenda. The White House defended the deportations as necessary to “protect the US from terrorists,” without providing evidence.
The rhetoric clashes with testimonies about deportees. Human rights lawyers report that many detainees lacked criminal records. “They were arrested for their nationality, not evidence,” said Ana Ortega of the NGO Venezuelans in Exile.
Venezuelans Dispute US-El Salvador Deportations, Insist Detainees Have No Ties to Aragua Train Gang
Clash with the judiciary
In March, US District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington, D.C., ordered a halt to deportations and the return of deportees. The administration ignored the order, sending over 200 Venezuelans to El Salvador. Boasberg threatened contempt proceedings, warning that defying court orders “makes a mockery of the Constitution.”
The White House claims compliance with the law, but critics highlight a pattern of judicial confrontation. “This is dangerous: the executive cannot ignore judges,” said Laura Gómez, a Harvard constitutional law professor.
The latest development occurred on Wednesday, April 16, when a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled there were grounds to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for deporting over 200 migrants to El Salvador’s mega-prison despite a court order.
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/JRE/SF
