DOJ Threatens Press with Subpoenas
Plus, the DOJ’s March memo lays out a wartime plan to expel Chinese nationals without trials, raising fears of unchecked executive power.
WASHINGTON — In a revealing glimpse of the Trump administration’s legal playbook, two major developments from the Department of Justice—one obscure and bureaucratic, the other loud and authoritarian—paint a chilling picture of where American governance is headed: backward.
On one side, a March 14 memo from the DOJ lays out detailed instructions for using the Alien Enemies Act—a law written in 1798—to detain and deport Chinese nationals in the event of a war with China. On the other, Attorney General Pam Bondi has signaled that the Justice Department is ready to use subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders against reporters who disclose information that, in her words, “undermines President Trump’s policies.”
Together, these actions form the architecture of an emergent doctrine: national security without accountability, and governance without dissent.
Migrant Insider is sponsored by
The Alien Enemies Playbook: Mass Deportation Without Trial
The March DOJ memo revives the Alien Enemies Act as a tool of mass removal. If Congress declares war on China, the memo gives the President unchecked power to apprehend, detain, and deport any Chinese national—without due process, without a hearing, and without judicial review.
The memo’s legal logic hinges on a decades-old Supreme Court case, Ludecke v. Watkins, and claims the President can act solely on nationality, not individual conduct. The only criterion for detention: being from an enemy nation.
This echoes the same law once used to justify the internment of Japanese Americans—a decision for which the U.S. government later apologized. But now, with rising geopolitical tensions and a second Trump term already targeting Latin American migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, this memo offers a disturbing look at how mass internment and exile are being mainstreamed as policy options.
Meanwhile, the First Amendment Is Under Siege
At the same time, Attorney General Pam Bondi is leading an unprecedented attack on press freedom. In a stark statement, Bondi announced that the DOJ is now open to compelling journalists to reveal their sources—a direct violation of long-standing norms and legal protections. “The Justice Department will not tolerate disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies,” she warned, opening the door to criminalizing reporting itself.
This comes just years after Trump’s first-term DOJ secretly obtained phone records from reporters at CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. And it follows a campaign promise from Trump to arrest journalists he disagrees with. He has since reached a $15 million settlement with ABC News and is pursuing a $20 billion lawsuit against CBS.
Now, without the protection of the PRESS Act—a bipartisan bill that would have prohibited exactly this kind of government overreach—newsrooms like The Intercept are being forced to weigh the risk of jail time for protecting their sources.
Congress Had a Chance to Stop This—And Didn’t
The PRESS Act had already passed the House and enjoyed bipartisan support. But Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer allowed the bill to expire before Trump returned to office.
Now, without statutory protections, Attorney General Bondi has the legal runway to pursue Trump’s vendetta against the press, all while preparing the government to expel people based solely on their citizenship.
MIGRANT INSIDER IS SPONSORED BY
The Bigger Picture: Executive Power Without Checks
The Trump administration’s use of wartime law to bypass courts, silence the press, and target entire populations represents a coordinated strategy—not just a series of isolated actions.
The DOJ’s March memo spells out how federal agents can detain and deport individuals without warrants, based on Form AEA-21A, a point-based checklist for validating alleged gang membership or associations. There is no guarantee of legal counsel, no access to immigration courts, and no right to appeal.
Similarly, Bondi’s remarks and Trump’s litigation strategy indicate a belief that journalists are not watchdogs, but enemies—a dangerous inversion of democratic values.