Epoch Readers Strongly Back Trump’s Efforts to Deport Venezuelan Gang Members: Poll

Readers back tough enforcement on gang-linked illegal immigrants, trust the executive branch, and want Congress to expand presidential power.

As legal battles over immigration enforcement escalate, a new Epoch Times poll of 43,720 respondents reveals overwhelming support for the Trump administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. The case, now before federal courts, has ignited a national debate over executive authority, public safety, and the limits of judicial power.

Readers of The Epoch Times sent a clear message in their responses to the poll: they support aggressive enforcement against gang-affiliated illegal immigrants.

Across nearly every question, readers expressed trust in the executive branch, skepticism of the judiciary, and a desire for Congress to bolster presidential authority.

From deportation flights and gang designations to curbing judicial overreach and strengthening immigration law, the poll shows a broad alignment with the Trump administration’s hardline approach to immigration enforcement.

Background: A Clash of Powers

On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border, citing an “invasion” by foreign criminal gangs, cartels, and traffickers. The proclamation invoked sweeping executive powers, directing federal agencies to restore “full operational control” of the southern border to stop the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.

Trump later invoked the Alien Enemies Act—an 18th-century wartime statute—to target members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization. The proclamation described the gang’s members as “alien enemies” unlawfully infiltrating the United States and conducting “irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions” against Americans in coordination with the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“I direct that all Alien Enemies described in section 1 of this proclamation are subject to immediate apprehension, detention, and removal,” Trump’s proclamation states. The move quickly led to the deportation of alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a gang tied to high-profile crimes including the murders of nursing student Laken Riley and 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray.

Hours after the proclamation, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order halting the deportations and certified a class action for all noncitizens affected. Trump responded by calling for Boasberg’s impeachment, prompting a rare rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and setting up a standoff between the executive and judicial branches.

Despite the injunction, the Trump administration has continued deportation flights. “The Administration did not ’refuse to comply' with a court order,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. “A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft ... full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.”

In this handout photo provided by the Salvadoran government, guards escort a newly admitted inmate allegedly linked to criminal organizations at CECOT in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 16, 2025. Salvadoran Government via Getty Images

Deportation Flights and Public Safety

The poll asked whether Epoch Times readers believe deportation flights of illegal immigrants improve public safety in the United States. Ninety-three percent of respondents said “yes,” while just 2 percent said “no.” Another 4 percent said it should be decided case-by-case, and 1 percent were unsure.

This overwhelming support reflects a widespread belief that immigration enforcement enhances national security. Hundreds of write-in responses called for the deportation of all illegal immigrants, not just those convicted of crimes, arguing that illegal entry alone constitutes a criminal act.

In the past 100 days, the Trump administration reports arresting 394 suspected Tren de Aragua members. The FBI recently announced an expansion of its counterterrorism mission to aggressively target transnational gangs like Tren de Aragua.

“Border security is essential to protecting our country and providing safer communities for our citizens,” FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement.

When asked specifically about Venezuelan gangs, 97 percent of respondents said they pose a threat to U.S. communities. Another 2 percent said such a determination should be made on a case-by-case basis, while 1 percent said “no.”

Respondents also expressed strong support for designating foreign gangs as terrorist organizations. Ninety-five percent agreed with this approach, while 3 percent were in favor of a case-by-case basis, and 2 percent were opposed.

Write-in responses frequently praised the administration for expediting deportations of gang-affiliated individuals, citing dangers related to drug smuggling, human trafficking, and violent crime.

ICE testimony from March 18 showed 54 Tren de Aragua members in ICE detention, 172 on the non-detained docket, and 32 in criminal custody with ICE detainers.

As part of Operation Take Back America, ICE has charged more than 840 illegal immigrants in a single week. Since Trump returned to office in January, the administration has reported 32,809 arrests and 29,033 deportations of illegal immigrants.

Deported migrants by the US Government walk to the bus upon the flight arrival at Ramon Villeda Morales International Airport in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, on Jan. 31, 2025. Jorge Salvador Cabrera/Getty Images

Enforcement Priorities and the Alien Enemies Act

The poll also explored views on immigration enforcement priorities and legal authority.

When asked whether immigration authorities should prioritize deporting those who committed crimes in the United States over those who entered the country illegally, 54 percent said “yes,” while 28 percent said “no.” Another 16 percent said this should be determined on a case-by-case basis, while 2 percent were unsure.

Write-in responses strongly opposed making distinctions between types of offenders, asserting that illegal entry is itself grounds for removal. Many explicitly rejected extending constitutional rights or due process to noncitizens.

On the question of using the Alien Enemies Act to speed up deportations, 91 percent supported the move, with just 4 percent opposed. Two percent supported a case-by-case approach, and 3 percent were unsure.

The Trump administration has defended using the 18th-century law as vital for protecting national security and sovereignty.

“The Alien Enemies Proclamation is supported by fact, law, and common sense, which we will establish in court and then expel the TDA [Tren de Aragua] terrorists from this country,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a recent statement, announcing a Justice Deprtment investigation into an intelligence leak that seemed calculated to undermine the Trump administration’s legal foundation for quick deportation of Venezuelan gang members under emergency powers.

Judicial Overreach and Nationwide Injunctions

The Trump administration’s continuation of deportation flights despite a court order has prompted backlash from some Democrats and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward—organizations often aligned with progressive causes.

These groups filed lawsuits to block the deportations, arguing that the invocation of the act against Tren de Aragua stretches its intended wartime scope and fails to establish clear ties between deportees and the gang.

However, the court injunction blocking Tren de Aragua deportations drew overwhelming disapproval from Epoch Times readers. Ninety-three percent said Boasberg was wrong to stop deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, with only 4 percent in favor, 2 percent unsure, and 1 percent favoring a case-by-case approach.

Eighty-four percent also supported continuing deportations despite the court’s injunction. Only 7 percent opposed, and 6 percent were unsure.

The U.S. Supreme Court is shown in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2025. Win McNamee/Getty Images

Ninety percent of respondents supported limiting nationwide injunctions issued by a single judge. Six percent were opposed, 3 percent said it should be considered on a case-by-case basis, while 1 percent expressed uncertainty.

Common write-in suggestions included defunding activist courts, stripping district judges of national authority, and even dismantling some lower courts altogether. Many argued that judges were engaging in political activism and undermining the constitutional role of the executive branch—especially in matters of immigration and national security.

Some demanded Congress or the Supreme Court limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions that interfere with executive decisions. Others emphasized that the executive branch was elected by the people and must be allowed to carry out its constitutional duties. Several called for codifying Trump’s executive orders into law to make them more permanent, while a smaller contingent warned about executive overreach and stressed the importance of balance between branches.

Despite criticism of the judiciary, 84 percent of readers said they trust federal authorities to accurately identify gang members for deportation. Just 5 percent said “no,” with 7 percent opting for case-by-case and 4 percent unsure.

Due Process and Constitutional Rights

The federal court challenge centers on whether alleged Tren de Aragua gang members were denied due process when deported under the Alien Enemies Act.

Boasberg found that deportees were removed without hearings, legal counsel, or access to the evidence against them—violating their legal rights.

However, 91 percent of Epoch Times readers disagreed that these deportations abused due process. Only 5 percent said “yes,” with 2 percent each saying “case-by-case” or “unsure.”

In write-in responses, many insisted that noncitizens do not qualify for due process under the Constitution—especially if they entered illegally or are tied to terrorism. While a minority expressed concern about executive overreach, the overwhelming sentiment favored strong presidential powers to protect national security.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has defended the administration’s approach, saying that the United States would “absolutely” continue the deportation flights despite the judge’s order, which she described as judicial overreach.

Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks about a 24 year-old MS-13 gang leader who was arrested in an operation by the Virginia Homeland Security Task Force in Dale City, VA., on March 27, 2025, during a news conference at the Manassas FBI Field Office, on March 27, 2025, in Manassas, VA. Rod Lamkey/AP Photo

“These are foreign terrorists ... the president has identified them, and designated them as such, and we will continue to follow the Alien Enemies Act,” Bondi said.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to lift Boasberg’s injunction.

“This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country—the President, through Article II, or the Judiciary,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in a March 28 filing. “The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice.”

Harris added that Boasberg’s orders “have rebuffed the President’s judgments as to how to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations.”

Paying El Salvador to Detain Deportees and The Role of Congress

One of the more divided poll questions asked whether the United States should pay El Salvador to hold deportees.

A slim majority—53 percent—supported the arrangement, while 20 percent opposed, 19 percent were unsure, and 8 percent said it should be handled case-by-case.

Supporters echoed statements by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said El Salvador agreed to detain gang members “in their very good jails at a fair price that will also save ... taxpayer dollars.”

Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele posted a video showing detainees arriving at a prison. “The United States will pay a very low fee for them, but a high one for us,” he wrote.

Write-in responses were also relatively divided. Some suggested deporting the prisoners to Venezuela instead, or requiring origin countries to fund their detainment. Others expressed concern about relying on foreign governments or outsourcing detention responsibilities.

Finally, the poll asked whether Congress has a larger role to play in deportation policy. While 25 percent said current laws are sufficient, a majority called for stronger action.

In this handout photo provided by the Salvadoran government, a guard watches the inmates allegedly linked to criminal organizations sitting on the floor at CECOT in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 16, 2025. Salvadoran Government via Getty Images

Sixty percent called for tougher immigration laws, 57 percent demanded limits on nationwide judicial injunctions, and 50 percent favored increased funding for deportation efforts. Multiple choices were possible so the total adds up to more than 100 percent.

Write-in responses showed deep frustration with Congress, which many see as ineffective, partisan, or complicit in judicial overreach. Respondents urged lawmakers to act swiftly—defunding rogue courts, codifying executive actions, and ending birthright citizenship. A recurring demand was for Congress to “do its job” and back enforcement efforts with legislation.

At a moment of high-stakes legal conflict, Epoch Times readers have voiced strong support for the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies, particularly the use of wartime authority to deport suspected gang members.

While the courts continue to deliberate, readers clearly want the executive branch to lead, Congress to act, and judges to stay within their constitutional bounds.

Want to participate in future polls? Sign up for our Specials & Updates email at TheEpochTimes.com/newsletter.