This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
In March, President Donald Trump was preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens. This use of the law, which was passed in 1798 and previously used to intern Japanese Americans during World War II, was unprecedented, and Emil Bove III, a top Justice Department official, was concerned that it was illegal.
To be clear, Bove wasn’t troubled that the administration might be breaking the law; rather, according to a new whistleblower complaint, he was concerned that the courts might try to block removals. In that case, “DOJ would need to consider telling the courts ‘fuck you’ and ignore any such court order,” Bove said, according to the document.
The complaint was made by Erez Reuveni, a fired DOJ lawyer, and first reported by The New York Times this week. The administration says that his allegations are falsehoods from a disgruntled former employee, but this is difficult to credit. A career lawyer, he was promoted by the Trump DOJ but says he was fired after he acknowledged in court that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was an administrative error and refused to accuse him of being a terrorist. The complaint details Reuveni’s “attempts over the course of three weeks and affecting three separate cases to secure the government’s compliance with court orders, and his resistance to the internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy them.” It also suggests that Reuveni has emails and texts to back up many of his claims.
A top Justice Department official allegedly conspiring to defy court orders would be very dangerous; what makes it darkly amusing, too, is that senators are this week considering Bove’s nomination to the federal bench that, according to Reuveni, he wanted to ignore. This led to a sharp exchange in a committee hearing yesterday between Bove and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, two veteran federal prosecutors, in which Bove repeatedly insisted that he did not “recall” making the comments that Reuveni alleged.
“Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?” Schiff asked.
“Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind,” Bove said.
“Wouldn’t you recall, Mr. Bove, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling the court, ‘Fuck you’?” Schiff replied. “It seems to me that would be something you’d remember—unless that’s the kind of thing you say frequently.”
Because no Republicans have yet come out against Bove’s nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he’s likely to win confirmation. (By way of reminder, Bove got here by serving as one of Trump’s personal lawyers in some of his many criminal cases.) This presents the grim parlor question of whether it’s better to have Bove in a lifetime appointment on the bench, where his opinions can be appealed, or at the Justice Department, where he’s reportedly been a one-man wrecking crew.
The allegations against Bove are what my former colleague James Fallows took to describing during the first Trump administration as shocking but not surprising. Trump himself has said repeatedly that he will abide by court orders, but his deputies have been less circumspect, especially Vice President J. D. Vance, who is a lawyer, and the former DOGE leader and current Trump frenemy Elon Musk.
Outside observers, including me, have fretted over what will happen if the White House actually crosses the rubicon of defiance. This is arguably beside the point. Even though the Trump administration continues to deny that it has refused to obey court orders, the reality is that it has already done so. Judge James Boasberg said in April that he’d concluded that probable cause existed to find the administration in contempt of court for removing certain Venezuelan immigrants. (An appeals court has temporarily stayed proceedings on the contempt charge.) In another instance, last month, the administration deported a Salvadoran man despite a court order forbidding it, then blamed “a confluence of administrative errors.” (These errors seem to be a consistent issue for this presidency!) The administration also insisted in a court filing that Abrego Garcia simply could not be returned as ordered, because the United States “does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation.” The DOJ proved that false not long afterward, when it brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. to face charges.
In a bizarre move this week, the administration sued every federal judge in Maryland—an attempt to evade an order that bans the government from immediately deporting migrants who are challenging their removal.
The fights with courts are ironic, because although Trump has fared poorly in lower courts, the Supreme Court has been willing to let him expand his powers once cases reach it. As Reuters reported earlier this month, the justices, using what’s known as the “shadow docket,” have repeatedly granted emergency requests to proceed, pending full consideration.
This week, the Court temporarily lifted an order preventing the executive branch from quickly deporting migrants to countries to which they have no ties. The White House has been seeking to send people—including Laotian, Vietnamese, and Filipino nationals—to extremely perilous countries such as Libya and South Sudan. This would be callous and morally abhorrent under any circumstances, but given the notable cases of the Trump administration deporting people who are legally protected, including Abrego Garcia, it is especially terrifying.
The desperation to sidestep court restrictions on deportations is evidence of the shortcomings of the White House’s plans. Trump aims to remove 1 million people this year, but as my colleague Nick Miroff reported yesterday, ICE statistics show that the agency has carried out only about 125,000 deportations since Trump took office, with roughly half the year gone. But as Reuveni’s story suggests, in this administration, to be honest is to risk being fired. Attacking the courts is much easier than admitting that the president’s signature promise is unrealistic.
Related:
Here are three new stories from The Atlantic:
- Tom Nichols on the president’s weapon
- Humanity is playing nuclear roulette, Jeffrey Goldberg argues.
- Three ways to find purpose and meaning in a job
Today’s News
- The Senate parliamentarian advised rejecting some Medicaid changes that would offset the costs of other key policies in President Donald Trump’s tax bill.
- Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran’s strike on a U.S. base in Qatar was a “slap to America’s face”; he also warned against further U.S. attacks on Iran.
- A new Supreme Court decision allows states to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.
Dispatches
- Time-Travel Thursdays: Isabel Fattal on how sleeping less became an American value.
Explore all of our newsletters here.
Evening Read
The Blockbuster That Captured a Growing American Rift
By Tyler Austin Harper
In a cramped, $50-a-month room above a New Jersey furnace-supply company, Peter Benchley set to work on what he once said, half-jokingly, might be “a Ulysses for the 1970s.” A novel resulted from these efforts, one Benchley considered titling The Edge of Gloom or Infinite Evil before deciding on the less dramatic but more fitting Jaws. Its plot is exquisite in its simplicity. A shark menaces Amity, a fictional, gentrifying East Coast fishing village. Chaos ensues: People are eaten …
In June 1975, 50 years ago this month, the movie version of Jaws was released in theaters and became the first-ever summer blockbuster. Though the film retains Benchley’s basic storyline—shark eats people; shark dies a bloody death—it turns the book’s politics upside down.
More From The Atlantic
- Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: Pro-Palestine activists fell for Iran’s propaganda.
- Alexandra Petri: Pete Hegseth’s guide to war
- Radio Atlantic: What does Khamenei do now?
Culture Break
Watch. Thank God for The Bear. Season 4 of the show (streaming on Hulu) is exactly what it—and we—needed, Sophie Gilbert writes.
Lean on me. In everyday life, many people are reluctant to ask for and offer help. But milestones such as weddings lower the barriers to relying on other people, Julie Beck writes.
Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter.
When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
The post Trump’s Deportation Goals Are Unrealistic appeared first on The Atlantic.
