The Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act: A Path to Ending a 70-Year Deadlock

By: Alan Hunchan Jeong

Although active fighting ended in 1953, the Korean War technically never concluded. The 1950–1953 conflict ended with an Armistice Agreement rather than a formal peace treaty, leaving the United States, South Korea, and North Korea still, in legal terms, at war. Most notably, South Korea requires every male citizen – many of whom can be easily encountered on U.S. college campuses – to serve in the military, highlighting the seriousness and urgency of geopolitical tensions in a divided nation amid the unresolved war. The region has been in a protracted state of limbo due to decades of hostilities and diplomatic setbacks.

To promote a peaceful resolution of the issues on the Korean Peninsula, Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) has repeatedly introduced the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act since the 117th Congress. Congressman Sherman emphasizes that the ongoing conflict on the Korean Peninsula is not in the best interests of the United States or its citizens with familial ties in North and South Korea, stressing the urgent need for serious diplomatic efforts to establish peace in the region. [1] The measure calls for the promotion of dialogue and a binding peace agreement between the U.S., South Korea, and North Korea, as well as the reassessment of the current stringent restrictions on U.S. interaction with North Korea.

The bill outlines a set of initiatives aimed at promoting peace on the Korean Peninsula. To begin, the bill seeks to restore diplomacy between South Korea, North Korea, and the United States, with the goal of officially ending the Korean War and establishing U.S.-North Korea liaison offices in Washington and Pyongyang. [2] The legislation requires the U.S. Department of State to submit a report to Congress outlining “a clear roadmap for achieving permanent peace agreement on the Korean Peninsula;” this report would include diplomatic strategies and recommendations for advancing U.S. engagement with both North Korea and South Korea to reach a “binding peace agreement constituting a formal and final end to the state of war between North Korea, South Korea, and the United States.” [3] By providing a framework for dialogue and permanent peace, the bill seeks to reinvigorate diplomatic efforts for engagement with North Korea that have largely stalled since the breakdown of the 2019 U.S.-North Korea talks in Hanoi, Vietnam. The failed attempt of the U.S.-North Korea Hanoi Summit reinforces the need for a detailed framework on how to approach North Korea. The backdrop for improving relations still exists, however, as the U.S.-North Korea joint statement signed in Singapore in 2018 included an agreement to “establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.” [4] A binding peace agreement and the respective liaison offices would not only enhance U.S.-North Korea relations by facilitating engagement that serves U.S. national interests but also advance greater humanitarian causes.

A second provision of the bill calls for a review of the travel restrictions currently in place for U.S. nationals wishing to visit North Korea. [5] Since 2017, the U.S. government has enforced strict travel bans preventing Americans from visiting North Korea due to security concerns, particularly in light of the tragic case of Otto Warmbier, a U.S. college student who died after being detained by North Korean authorities. [6] While these restrictions were enacted for citizens’ safety, the bill recognizes the “compelling humanitarian considerations” to reunite U.S. citizens with family members left in North Korea, as around 100,000 Americans have relatives there – at least to allow them to attend a funeral, burial, or commemoration of their loved ones. [7]

Despite its grand initiatives, the bill confronts substantial challenges. Opponents argue that the legislation seems premature and could pose serious security risks to South Korea, as it could result in the withdrawal of U.S. troops stationed there, the weakening of the U.S.-ROK alliance, the dissolution of the United Nations Command, and the lifting of sanctions on North Korea without ensuring its denuclearization. [8] To address critics’ concerns that the bill’s enactment could lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, the updated version of the legislation introduced in the 118th Congress includes Section 6, Rule of Construction: “Nothing in this Act may be construed to affect the status of United States Armed Forces stationed in South Korea or any other foreign country.” [9] Accordingly, Seoul’s stances on engagement with North Korea and a peace agreement are determining factors. While past South Korean administrations – particularly under Presidents Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in – actively pursued engagement with North Korea through several summit meetings with its leaders, the current conservative administration has taken a hawkish stance on North Korea. [10]

However, it is important to recognize that the kind of engagement the bill calls for with North Korea does not necessarily mean appeasement. Instead, it provides opportunities to manage tensions, lower the risk of contingencies, and gradually build trust between opposing parties. A realpolitik example is the rapprochement between the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China during the Sino-Soviet split in the Cold War, which may have aided U.S. national interests by hastening the eventual decline of the Soviet Union. Policymakers must carefully navigate the broader geopolitical landscape to discover creative diplomatic pathways that could boost overall security.

As the bill continues to progress through Congress – it already enjoys bipartisan backing, with 52 cosponsors by the end of the 118th Congress – its success will hinge on public support for engagement over confrontation. [11] If the Act becomes law, it will represent a major step toward peace, not only on the Korean Peninsula but across East Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific. It would be a reminder that careful diplomacy and patient engagement can still work when it comes to addressing long-standing regional challenges, such as the ones on the Korean Peninsula and in other notable places, such as the Taiwan Strait.

NOTES:

1. “Congressman Brad Sherman Leads Colleagues in Re-Introducing the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” Congressman Brad Sherman, March 1, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025, https://sherman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-brad-sherman-leads-colleagues-in-re-introducing-the-peace-on.

2. “Text - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” Congress.gov, March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/text.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Department of State, “United States Passports Invalid for Travel To, In, or through the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK),” Federal Register, August 8, 2024, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/08/2024-17519/united-states-passports-invalid-for-travel-to-in-or-through-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea.

7. “Text - H.R.1369.”

8. Hyeon-seok Gang, “[bareondae] ‘hanbando pyeonghwabeobane’un sigisangjo [[Speakers’ Corner] The ‘Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act’ Is Premature],” Koreatimes.com, February 12, 2025, accessed February 15, 2025, http://www.koreatimes.com/article/20250212/1551631.

9. “Text - H.R.1369.”

10. Gagan Hitkari, “Why South Korea Needs to Reassess Its Hardline Stance against Pyongyang,” South China Morning Post, November 10, 2024, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.scmp.com/opinion/asia-opinion/article/3285856/why-south-korea-needs-reassess-its-hardline-stance-against-pyongyang.

11. “Cosponsors - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” Congress.gov, March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/cosponsors.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Congress.gov. “Cosponsors - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/cosponsors.

Congress.gov. “Text - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/text.

Congressman Brad Sherman. “Congressman Brad Sherman Leads Colleagues in Re-Introducing the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” March 1, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025. https://sherman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-brad-sherman-leads-colleagues-in-re-introducing-the-peace-on.

Department of State. “United States Passports Invalid for Travel To, In, or through the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).” Federal Register, August 8, 2024, accessed February 15, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/08/2024-17519/united-states-passports-invalid-for-travel-to-in-or-through-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea.

Gang, Hyeon-seok. “[bareondae] ‘hanbando pyeonghwabeobane’un sigisangjo [[Speakers’ Corner] The ‘Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act’ Is Premature],” Koreatimes.com, February 12, 2025, accessed February 15, 2025. http://www.koreatimes.com/article/20250212/1551631.

The Legal Battles of the Federal Funding Freeze

By: David Rodriguez

Edited by: Sam Yip and anna dellit

Following the multiple executive orders of President Donald Trump, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum titled M-25-13, directing all federal agencies to temporarily pause federal financial assistance involving nongovernmental organizations and issues, such as climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion. [1] This action aimed to review and match federal government spending with the Trump administration's agenda. [2] The broad scope of the memo sparked uncertainty among states, schools, and organizations that receive trillions of dollars from the federal government. [3] Later, the Trump administration clarified that direct assistance programs such as food stamps, Medicare, and student loans would not be affected, but provided an uncertain stance at times regarding programs like Medicare. [4] 

This prompted states and nongovernmental organizations to turn to the courts and launch lawsuits against the Trump administration. On January 28th, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan from the District of Columbia issued an administrative stay until Monday, February 3, blocking the memo moments before it was said to take into effect. [5] This action arose from an emergency hearing involving nonprofit groups that receive federal assistance. [6]

The Office of Management and Budget then rescinded M-25-13 the next day. According to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, these efforts were to end both the confusion that news outlets and courts have caused, while also ending all legal challenges. [7] Leavitt also states that eliminating the M-25-13 was not a rescission of the efforts to administer a funding freeze. [8] This prompted U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell to issue a temporary restraining order on January 31. [9] This legal challenge was brought by 22 states and the District of Columbia in a Rhode Island Federal Courthouse. [10] The temporary restraining order prohibited the Trump administration from freezing any federal grant and loan payments. [11] Chief Judge McConnell called the funding freeze unconstitutional due to a violation of the separation of powers where the executive exercised authority reserved for congress. [12] There is no federal law that would allow the executive branch to implement such an order by itself. [13] Chief Judge McConnell also sees this federal freeze as a mechanism that causes harm to states like California’s relief efforts with wildfires. [14]

Similar conclusions were made on February 3, when U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan held a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order. Judge AliKhan justified the granting of this temporary restraining order by displaying how a nonprofit that assists disabled West Virginians living in their own homes still could not access funds that they receive from the Department of Health and Human Services. [15] This resulted in the layoff of one employee and has led to services being reduced. [16] It is clear that the Trump administration did not obey Judge AliKhan’s original order and with the memo implicating as much as three trillion dollars in assistance [17], action needed to be taken. Judge AliKhan highlights similar concerns as Chief Judge McConnell regarding constitutionality. Judge Alikhan states that this memo tried to snatch the power of the purse from the only branch that is entitled to it, which is Congress. [18]

Throughout these legal challenges, states and nongovernmental agencies face real concern. The Trump administration crafted a 51-page spreadsheet that was sent out to federal agencies, highlighting programs that would be under review. [19] The programs ranged from special education to pool safety. [20] Many states had trouble accessing funds through Medicaid and online portals used to access federal assistance were temporarily taken offline. [21] Other organizations that involved services like childcare in Wisconsin had issues accessing federal funding. [22] Whole cities like Prichard, Alabama had concerns about federal infrastructure funding that would be critical to fix their drinking water system, but now was in jeopardy. [23] 

In February, Judge McConnell was notified of multiple Democratic-led states still having trouble accessing billions of dollars even after the issuance of the temporary restraining order. [24] He believes that this was cause for states to have a “rightful concern” while making it clear that the court was ready to enforce the temporary restraining order. [25] During the preliminary injunction hearing, Judge McConnell reasserted the unconstitutionality of the federal funding freeze stating that with this order, the executive would put itself above Congress. [26] Depending on the state, federal funding can account for around 18 to 50 percent of the state’s budget. [27] A federal funding freeze or cut means states must make up for this sum, causing hardships for states with stressed budgets. [28]

While the courts are addressing this attempt at a federal funding freeze, there are other mechanisms targeting state and federally funded programs. At the agency level, such as in the Department of Agriculture, more than one billion dollars of additional funding provided by the Biden administration has been halted. [29] This decision will impact the Local Food for Schools program and the Local Food Purchase program which provides funds to schools and food assistance organizations. [30] While the Department of Agriculture unfroze the existing funding agreements for the Local Food Purchase program, the following round of funding will not occur. [31] Additionally, Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency vow to cut one trillion dollars in overall federal spending. [32]

On the congressional side, a continuing resolution bill has passed the Senate which will fund the government until September 30 with a thirteen billion dollar cut in nondefense spending impacting earmarks for items such as higher education. [33] Additionally, many programs in the continuing resolution do not have established funding levels such as Pell Grants allowing the Trump administration to have the ability and ask Congress to withdraw funds. [34] As federal funds become a continuous target, ongoing legal battles about freezes or cuts become vital to follow.

Notes:

1. National Council of Nonprofits et al v. Office of Management and Budget et al, 1:25-cv-00239, D.D.C, 1 (2025) 

2. Lindsay Whitehurst, “Judge in Nation’s Capital Extends Block on Trump Administration Federal Funding Freeze,” The Associated Press News, February 3, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-federal-grants-loans-funding-freeze-court-1bc457d8e333dd8a8f374572ea33927. AP 1

3. Chris Megerian and Lindsay Whitehurst, “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans,” The Associated Press News, The Associated Press, January 29, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-pause-federal-grants-aid-f9948b9996c0ca971f0065fac85737ce. 

4. Megerian et al., “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans”

5. Chris Megerian, Zeke Miller, and Lisa Mascaro, “Trump White House Rescinds Memo Freezing Federal Money After Widespread Confusion,” The Associated Press News, January 29, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-pause-federal-grants-aid-6d41961940585544fa43a3f66550e7be. 

6. Merergian et al., “Trump White House Rescinds Memo Freezing Federal Money After Widespread Confusion”

7. Merergian et al., “Trump White House Rescinds Memo Freezing Federal Money After Widespread Confusion”

8. Jordan Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC,” WUSA9, January 31, 2025, https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/legal/judge-mcconnell-blocks-federal-funding-freeze-in-22-states-and-dc-omb-office-of-management-and-budget/65-a69062f4-48ae-463e-972d-d43b40287d69.

9. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

10. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

11. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

12. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

13. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

14. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

15.  Maureen Groppe, “Judge Extends Pause on Trump Funding Freeze After Finding Administration Has Not Complied,” USA Today, February 3, 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/03/judge-trump-administration-funding-freeze/78180951007/.

16. Groppe, “Judge Extends Pause on Trump Funding Freeze After Finding Administration Has Not Complied”

17. NCN et al v. OMB et al, 24.

18. NCN et al v. OMB et al, 25

19. Megerian et al., “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans”

20. Megerian et al., “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans”

21. Alys Davies, Kayla Epstein, and Max Matza,“White House Rescinds Memo on Freezing Federal Grants and Loans,” BBC, January 29, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyv48540n4po.

22. Whitehurst, “Judge in Nation’s Capital Extends Block on Trump Administration Federal Funding Freeze”

23. Megerian et al., “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans”

24. Nate Raymond, “US States Tell Judge Trump Not Fully Following Order Blocking Funding Freeze,” Reuters, February 6, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-states-tell-judge-trump-not-fully-following-order-blocking-funding-freeze-2025-02-06/.

25. Raymond, “US States Tell Judge Trump Not Fully Following Order Blocking Funding Freeze”

26. Elena Moore, “A Second Federal Judge Has Ruled to Block the Trump Administration’s Spending Freeze,” NPR, March 6, 2025 https://www.npr.org/2025/03/06/nx-s1-5312069/trump-federal-funding-freeze-court-order.  

27. Kennedy Andara and Mimla Wardak, “The Consequences of a Federal Funding Freeze in the States,” Center for American Progress, February 6, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-consequences-of-a-federal-funding-freeze-in-the-states/.

28. Andara et al., “The Consequences of a Federal Funding Freeze in the States.”

29. Marcia Brown, “USDA Cancels $1B in Local Food Purchasing for Schools, Food Banks,” Politico, March 10, 2025 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/10/usda-cancels-local-food-purchasing-for-schools-food-banks-00222796

30. Brown, “USDA Cancels $1B in Local Food Purchasing for Schools, Food Banks”

31. Brown, “USDA Cancels $1B in Local Food Purchasing for Schools, Food Banks”

32. Nathan Layne and Costas Pitas, “Musk Says he Will Finish Most of $1 Trillion Federal Cost Within Weeks,” Reuters, March 27, 2025 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-says-1-trillion-us-spending-cuts-possible-without-touching-services-2025-03-27/

33. Maria Carrasco, “Senate Passes Federal Spending Bill, Averting Government Shutdown,” National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, March 17, 2025 https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/35850/Senate_Passes_Federal_Spending_Bill_Averting_Government_Shutdown

34. Carrasco, “Senate Passes Federal Spending Bill, Averting Government Shutdown”
    

Bibliography:

Andara, Kennedy and Mimla Wardak. “The Consequences of a Federal Funding Freeze in the States” Center for American Progress, February 6, 2025. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-consequences-of-a-federal-funding-freeze-in-the-states/.

Brown, Marcia. “USDA Cancels $1B in Local Food Purchasing for Schools, Food Banks” Politico, March 10, 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/10/usda-cancels-local-food-purchasing-for-schools-food-banks-00222796

Carrasco, Maria. “Senate Passes Federal Spending Bill, Averting Government Shutdown” National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, March 17, 2025. https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/35850/Senate_Passes_Federal_Spending_Bill_Averting_Government_Shutdown

Davies, Alys, Epstein, Kayla, and Max Matza. “White House Rescinds Memo on Freezing Federal Grants and Loans” BBC, January 29, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyv48540n4po.

Fischer, Jordan. “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC” WUSA9, January 31, 2025. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/legal/judge-mcconnell-blocks-federal-funding-freeze-in-22-states-and-dc-omb-office-of-management-and-budget/65-a69062f4-48ae-463e-972d-d43b40287d69.

Groppe, Maureen. “Judge Extends Pause on Trump Funding Freeze After Finding Administration Has Not Complied” USA Today, February 3, 2025. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/03/judge-trump-administration-funding-freeze/78180951007/.

Layne, Nathan and Costas Pitas. “Musk Says he Will Finish Most of $1 Trillion Federal Cost Within Weeks” Reuters, March 27, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-says-1-trillion-us-spending-cuts-possible-without-touching-services-2025-03-27/

Megerian, Chris, Miller, Zeke, and Lisa Mascaro. “Trump White House Rescinds Memo Freezing Federal Money After Widespread Confusion” The Associated Press News, January 29, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-pause-federal-grants-aid-6d41961940585544fa43a3f66550e7be.

Megerian, Chris, and Lindsay Whitehurst. “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans” The Associated Press News, January 29, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-pause-federal-grants-aid-f9948b9996c0ca971f0065fac85737ce.

Moore, Elena. “A Second Federal Judge Has Ruled to Block the Trump Administration’s Spending Freeze” NPR, March 6, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/06/nx-s1-5312069/trump-federal-funding-freeze-court-order

National Council of Nonprofits et al v. Office of Management and Budget et al, 1:25-cv-00239, D.D.C, 1 (2025)

Raymond, Nate. “US States Tell Judge Trump Not Fully Following Order Blocking Funding Freeze” Reuters, February 6, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-states-tell-judge-trump-not-fully-following-order-blocking-funding-freeze-2025-02-06/.

Whitehurst, Lindsay. “Judge in Nation’s Capital Extends Block on Trump Administration Federal Funding Freeze” The Associated Press News, February 3, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/trump-federal-grants-loans-funding-freeze-court-1bc457d8e333dd8a8f374572ea33927.c

Governor Pritzker’s Fight Against ICE

By: Baylee Krulewitz

Edited by: clark mahoney and Eliana Aemro Selassie

On February 6th, the US Justice Department sued the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago on grounds of interference with the Trump administration’s recent immigration enforcement policies. Specifically, the Justice Department claimed that Chicago’s status as a sanctuary city is unlawful. In response, Illinois governor JB Pritzker has stood his ground, claiming that the laws in place in Illinois are there to protect against violent crime as best they can. 

“Sanctuary city” is a term that can often be thrown around quite loosely, especially in times of heated debate over immigration policy. Part of the reason for this confusion is that its definition is fairly ambiguous. The status of sanctuary city is one that any place can apply to itself, without having to check any boxes or fulfill any requirements. Generally, though, a sanctuary city is one where the municipality neglects to use its resources to fund federal immigration practices or crackdowns. 

So, what are these sanctuary laws that the Justice Department is so upset about? In Chicago, the city follows  the Welcoming City Ordinance, which states that “the City will not ask about your immigration status, disclose that information to authorities, or, most importantly, deny you City services based on your immigration status.”[1]  On the state level, Illinois operates under the powerful TRUST Act, which Republican Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law in 2017. The law declared that “law enforcement shall not stop, arrest, search, detain or continue to detain a person solely due to immigration status.”[2] The intention behind this act was to improve relations between immigrants of all citizen statuses and law enforcement officers, in hopes of getting the two to team up against violent crime. The act requires a warrant from a judge before allowing detainment by law enforcement, in an attempt to make the minimization of violence the top priority for police forces. In a press release from the governor’s office announcing the signing of the act, it was made very clear that the act is not meant to estrange Illinois law enforcement from federal law enforcement, saying, “The TRUST Act makes clear that Illinois will be a good partner with the federal government, and law enforcement will continue communicating with federal immigration and law enforcement officials.”[3]  However, this principle has disintegrated in recent times. 

In its lawsuit against the state of Illinois, the Justice Department asserts that the state violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, which states that federal law is the supreme law of the land. In other words, the lawsuit says that the TRUST Act is failing to do the very thing it set out to do: balance the well-being of Illinois residents with compliance with federal law. In response to the lawsuit, Gov. Pritzker provided a direct attack on President Trump, stating “​​Unlike Donald Trump, we follow the law in Illinois. Now, maybe they put up with this kind of garbage in Florida, which is the home state of the head of the DOJ, but in Illinois we have grit, we are tough, we are strong and Donald Trump has no idea what he is up against when he attacks Illinois.”[4]  So, just a few action-packed weeks into Trump’s second presidency, Illinois and its administration are already at odds with the federal government. 

So what now? US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has already begun Trump-ordered sweeps in Chicago, with over 100 people already having been detained since the new administration began.[5] Soon after the lawsuit was cast, the ACLU of Illinois issued a statement demonstrating support for the TRUST Act as well as Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance, highlighting the role of these legislative acts in limiting violent crime.[6] So, both sides of the fight over immigration policy in this country have gritted their teeth, indicating that this battle will be long, complex, and worrisome not just for the people of Illinois, but for Americans across the nation. 

NOTES:

1. Anon. “Sanctuary Cities FAQs.” Chicago.gov. https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Office%20of%20New%20Americans/PDFs/SanctuaryCitiesFAQs.pdf

2. Anon. 2017. “Gov. Rauner Signs TRUST Act.” Illinois.gov. August 28, 2017  https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.14747.html 

3. Anon. 2017. “Gov. Rauner Signs TRUST Act.” Illinois.gov. August 28, 2017  https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.14747.html 

4. Lisette Nuñez. 2025.  “Illinois Governor JB Pritzker responds to 'garbage' DOJ lawsuit over sanctuary city policies. ABC7. February 7, 2025 https://abc7chicago.com/post/illinois-governor-jb-pritzker-responds-garbage-doj-lawsuit-sanctuary-city-policies/15877508/ 

5. Lisette Nuñez and Craig Wall. 2025. Mayor reaffirms Chicago's welcoming city status amid ICE raids; at least 100 arrested in area. ABC7. January 28, 2025. https://abc7chicago.com/post/ice-chicago-immigration-raids-today-arrests-continue-mayor-brandon-johnson-called-testify-sanctuary-city-policy/15843173/

6. Anon. 2025. ACLU of Illinois responds to Trump administration lawsuit challenging state and local policies prioritizing public safety over federal civil immigration enforcement. ACLU Illinois. February 6, 2025.   https://www.aclu-il.org/en/press-releases/aclu-illinois-responds-trump-administration-lawsuit-challenging-state-and-local 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

“Sanctuary Cities FAQs.” Chicago.gov, https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Office%20of%20New%20Americans/PDFs/SanctuaryCitiesFAQs.pdf

“Gov. Rauner Signs TRUST Act.” Illinois.gov, August 28, 2017, https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.14747.html 

“Illinois Governor JB Pritzker responds to 'garbage' DOJ lawsuit over sanctuary city policies.” ABC7, February 7, 2025, https://abc7chicago.com/post/illinois-governor-jb-pritzker-responds-garbage-doj-lawsuit-sanctuary-city-policies/15877508/ 

“Mayor reaffirms Chicago's welcoming city status amid ICE raids; at least 100 arrested in area.” ABC7, January 28, 2025, https://abc7chicago.com/post/ice-chicago-immigration-raids-today-arrests-continue-mayor-brandon-johnson-called-testify-sanctuary-city-policy/15843173/

“ACLU of Illinois responds to Trump administration lawsuit challenging state and local policies prioritizing public safety over federal civil immigration enforcement.” ACLU Illinois, February 6, 2025, https://www.aclu-il.org/en/press-releases/aclu-illinois-responds-trump-administration-lawsuit-challenging-state-and-local 

What to Make of Nayib Bukele’s Proposal to Outsource U.S. Incarceration

By: Alexandra Henriquez

Edited by: Anna Dellit and Alicia Gu

Following Trump’s re-election to the Oval Office, the United States (U.S.) Senate quickly confirmed former U.S. Senator of Florida, Marco Rubio, as the new Secretary of State. Within the first week of February, Rubio met with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele in the country’s capital, San Salvador, to discuss regional security cooperation, economic partnerships, and efforts to curb migration through strengthened diplomatic relations. According to the Department of State’s Press Release on February 3, 2025, “Multiple agreements were struck to fight the waves of illegal mass migration.” [1] Bukele agreed to take back all Salvadoran MS-13 gang members who are in the United States unlawfully and to incarcerate criminal undocumented immigrants from any country. Additionally, he “offered to house in his jails dangerous American criminals, including U.S. citizens and legal residents.” President Trump told reporters, “I’m just saying if we had a legal right to do it, I would do it in a heartbeat.” [2] The offer raises essential questions about the legality and implications of outsourcing incarceration, as well as the rights of American citizens.

Sending U.S. citizens or legal residents to Salvadoran prisons mirrors the trend of prison privatization, the outsourcing of incarceration to external entities to ease overcrowded facilities and reduce government costs. These external entities prioritize cost-cutting over rehabilitation. [3] Bukele’s proposal could be seen as an international extension of this trend, where the United States effectively contracts out incarceration to a foreign government. Just like private prisons have been criticized for poor conditions, a deal with El Salvador could result in even less oversight and accountability for how prisoners are treated. The key difference between Bukele’s offer and the current privatization of U.S. prisons is that Bukele’s offer involves transferring incarcerated individuals to a foreign jurisdiction where U.S. legal standards and oversight would no longer apply. While private prisons within the U.S. operate under federal and state regulations, albeit with significant concerns regarding transparency and conditions, outsourcing incarceration to El Salvador could remove even these minimal safeguards. This raises serious questions about due process, prisoners’ rights, and the U.S. government’s responsibility to its citizens.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a U.S. citizen cannot be legally deported. In Fung Ho v. White (1922), the court reaffirmed congressional power “to order at any time the deportation of aliens whose presence in the country it deems hurtful, and may do so by appropriate executive proceedings” when evaluating the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1892. [4] The court notes, however, that “jurisdiction in the executive to order deportation exists only if the person arrested is an alien. The claim of citizenship is thus a denial of an essential jurisdictional fact.” This ruling established that non-citizens who claim to be lawfully present in the U.S. have the right to a judicial hearing before deportation. The question then turns to whether or not there is an exception for sending U.S. citizens abroad for detention.

Guantánamo Bay is an infamous loophole where detainees are held outside of the U.S. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report from November 2021 goes through Supreme Court precedent on due process for Guantanamo Bay detainees. While Guantanamo Bay is not technically U.S. territory, Rasul v. Bush (2004) held that the U.S. has jurisdiction over the area. Hence, detainees at Guantánamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts, and Boumediene v. Bush (2008) found that the right to habeas corpus also applies. [5] Yet the ruling was limited to habeas corpus and did not decide whether detainees have broader due process rights under the Fifth Amendment (such as a right to a fair trial). The D.C. Circuit Court in Al Hela v. Biden (2023) aimed to address whether non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo Bay have due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. Still, the court avoided the question by applying judicial restraint, refusing “to decide whether a right applies when it finds that the right has not been violated.” [6]

Guantánamo has been heavily criticized for inhumane interrogation techniques. Similarly, Human Rights Watch has reported on the inhumane force used by El Salvadoran prisons. [7] In 2023, the U.S. Department of State released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for El Salvador wrote that although “reports of gang violence decreased significantly, allowing citizens to exercise their right to life, liberty, and security of person,” it has come at the cost of arbitrary and politically motivated arrests and deprivation of life, due process failures, and inhumane or torturous prison conditions. [8] As the Trump administration considers its stance on Bukele’s offer, it must first address critical questions of citizenship and deportation before then addressing issues of due process and fundamental human rights.

Notes:

1. U.S. Department of State. “Secretary Rubio’s Meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.” February 3, 2025. https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-meeting-with-salvadoran-president-nayib-bukele/ 

2.  Chappell, Bill. “Would It Be Legal for Trump to Send U.S. Citizens to El Salvador’s Jails?” NPR. February 5, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5287670/trump-el-salvador-americans-prison. 

3. Badmus, Gabriella A. “Privatization and Flawed Punishment: An Economic Analysis and Critique of Private Prisons in the United States and United Kingdom.” Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business. Vol. 44, 129-148. 2024. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol44/iss1/3 

4. Ng Fung Ho v. White. 259 U.S. 276. Supreme Court of the United States. 1922. 

5. Congressional Research Service. “Due Process Rights for Guantanamo Detainees.” Legal Sidebar LSB10654. November 2, 2021. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10654. 

6. Proctor, Haley. “D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: Encore!” Yale Journal on Regulation. April 17, 2023. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-encore/. 

7. Human Rights Watch. “El Salvador: Inhumane Prison Lockdown Treatment,” Human Rights Watch. April 29, 2020. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/29/el-salvador-inhumane-prison-lockdown-treatment.

8. U.S. Department of State. El Salvador 2023 Human Rights Report. 1. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/el-salvador/.  

Bibliography:

1. Badmus, Gabriella A. “Privatization and Flawed Punishment: An Economic Analysis and Critique of Private Prisons in the United States and United Kingdom.” Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, Vol. 44, 129-148. 2024. 

2. Chappell, Bill. “Would It Be Legal for Trump to Send U.S. Citizens to El Salvador’s Jails?” NPR. February 5, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5287670/trump-el-salvador-americans-prison. 

3. Badmus, Gabriella A. “Privatization and Flawed Punishment: An Economic Analysis and Critique of Private Prisons in the United States and United Kingdom.” Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business. Vol. 44, 129-148 (2024). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol44/iss1/3 

4. Congressional Research Service. “Due Process Rights for Guantanamo Detainees.” Legal Sidebar LSB10654. November 2, 2021. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10654. 

5. Ng Fung Ho v. White. 259 U.S. 276. Supreme Court of the United States. 1922.​

6. Human Rights Watch, “El Salvador: Inhumane Prison Lockdown Treatment,” Human Rights Watch. April 29, 2020. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/29/el-salvador-inhumane-prison-lockdown-treatment.

7. Proctor, Haley. “D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: Encore!” Yale Journal on Regulation. April 17, 2023. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-encore/. 

8. U.S. Department of State, El Salvador 2023 Human Rights Report. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/el-salvador/. 

9. U.S. Department of State. “Secretary Rubio’s Meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.” February 3, 2025. https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-meeting-with-salvadoran-president-nayib-bukele/