In a growing diplomatic row, Venezuela has publicly denied the U.S. government's claims regarding the deportation of hundreds of its nationals to El Salvador, asserting that none of these individuals have links to the criminal gang Tren de Aragua. The Venezuelan Interior Minister, Diosdado Cabello, spoke out on Friday, March 21, firmly stating that the allegations are a part of a narrative created by the United States to "stigmatize" Venezuelan migrants.
Cabello's comments came shortly after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act—an obscure wartime law from 1798—to expedite the deportation of individuals accused of gang affiliation. According to the Trump administration, 919 Venezuelans have been deported since February 2025, with many reportedly being sent to a high-security prison in El Salvador known as CECOT, where they face hard labor without a formal trial.
“The Tren de Aragua? It is a narrative to stigmatize a people,” Cabello asserted during a podcast. “None of the 919 Venezuelans who have returned to the country belong to the Tren de Aragua. This is a war against Venezuela.” His remarks highlight rising tensions particularly between Caracas and Washington, where the latter has labeled Tren de Aragua a terrorist organization.
The tensions heightened further when Cabello criticized Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, calling him “an instrument of imperialism.” This strong condemnation reflects Venezuela's view that external forces are manipulating the narrative to distract from domestic issues.
After the deportations were announced, a substantial body of public outcry followed, mainly from family members and legal representatives who expressed concerns over the welfare and rights of those deported. Lawyers representing five men among the deported claim that their clients were targeted based on popular tattoos that immigration authorities wrongly associated with alleged gang connections.
In a sworn declaration made by Robert Cerna, the acting field office director of enforcement and removal operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he stated that tattoos did not solely influence the identification of these individuals as gang members. However, the families dispute that stance, insisting the tattoos merely represent personal interests in culture or family, not gang affiliation.
Ronna Risquez, an expert on Tren de Aragua, further elaborated that tattoos do not serve as definitive proof of membership in the gang, arguing, “To be a member of one of these Venezuelan organizations, you don’t need a tattoo.” She emphasized that the connection between tattoos and gang membership often attributed to other criminal organizations, like MS-13, does not hold for Tren de Aragua.
Interestingly, the alleged identifiers for gang affiliation—a collection of tattoos from Jumpman logos to phrases like “Real Hasta la Muerte”—are not exclusive to cybercriminals. They are popular cultural references that resonate with many youths. In fact, Risquez pointed out how the saying “Real Hasta la Muerte,” popularized by Puerto Rican reggaeton artist Anuel AA, has transcended its origins and can often be found among ordinary fans rather than gang members.
Amid this legal drama, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has intervened, issuing an emergency order halting the deportations and claiming they were “troublesome” and “problematic.” Judge Boasberg also expressed concern over the use of the Alien Enemies Act, questioning its appropriateness in this context.
As these events unfold, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has vowed to continue fighting for the return of those imprisoned in El Salvador, stating, “They are innocent.” Maduro's government claims to have hired the best law firms in El Salvador and the U.S. to assist in this case.
Thus, this issue grows increasingly complex, merging poignant questions of justice, humanitarian rights, and political manipulation. As more allegations surface regarding the validity of gang affiliations tied to tattoos, the implications on the deportees' futures remain deeply uncertain.
The Trump administration firmly maintains its stance, with statements asserting that all deported individuals had outstanding orders for expulsion. This, however, does not alleviate concerns raised by legal representatives who argue that many of those deported are victims of misrepresentation and hasty legal actions.
In summary, as the legal battles and political debates continue, the overall situation paints a grim picture of the delicate balance between national security claims and the inherent rights of individuals—especially those fleeing troubled circumstances in their home countries. While the U.S. claims such deportations are necessary for security, questions linger about the integrity of evidence used in identifying potential threats.
