By NICHOLAS RICCARDI

President Donald Trump on Monday reiterated that he’d like to send U.S. citizens who commit violent crimes to prison in El Salvador, telling that country’s president, Nayib Bukele, that he’d “have to build five more places” to hold the potential new arrivals.

Trump’s administration has already deported immigrants to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison CECOT, known for its harsh conditions. The president has also said his administration is trying to find “legal” ways to ship U.S. citizens there, too.

Trump on Monday insisted these would just be “violent people,” implying they would be those already convicted of crimes in the United States, though he’s also floated it as a punishment for those who attack Tesla dealerships to protest his administration and its patron, billionaire Elon Musk. But it would likely be a violation of the U.S. Constitution for his administration to send any native-born citizen forcibly into an overseas prison. Indeed, it would likely even violate a provision of a law Trump himself signed during his first term.

Here’s a look at the notion of sending U.S. citizens to prison in a foreign country, why it’s likely not legal and some possible legal loopholes.

If it’s legal to do to immigrants, why not citizens?

Immigrants can be deported from the United States, while citizens cannot. Deportation is covered by immigration law, which does not apply to U.S. citizens. Part of being a citizen means you cannot be forcibly sent to another country.

Immigrants can be removed, and that’s what’s been happening in El Salvador. The country is taking both its own citizens that the United States is sending as well as those from Venezuela and potentially other countries that will not take their own citizens back from the U.S. The Venezuelans sent there last month had no opportunity to respond to evidence against them or appear before a judge.

That’s the deal the Trump administration signed with Bukele. The U.S. has sent people to El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama and elsewhere even when they are not citizens of those countries. But, under international agreements, people cannot be sent to countries where they are likely to be persecuted or tortured.

Prisoners look out from their cell at the Terrorist Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, Friday, April 4, 2025, during a tour by the Costa Rica Justice and Peace minister. (AP Photo/Salvador Melendez)

Why does the Trump administration want to send people to El Salvador?

Bukele calls himself “the world’s coolest dictator” and has cracked down on human rights during his administration. He’s also turned El Salvador from one of the world’s most violent countries into a fairly safe one. Trump has embraced that example, including during the Oval Office visit Monday.

Sending immigrants from countries like Venezuela to El Salvador sends a message to would-be migrants elsewhere about the risks of trying to make it to — or stay in — the United States.

Related Articles

Core Democratic groups are preparing to be targeted by the Trump administration

Joe Biden will speak about Social Security in his return to the national stage

US moves ahead on tariffs with investigations into computer chips, pharmaceuticals

A Palestinian activist expecting a US citizenship interview is arrested instead by ICE in Vermont

Judge in Vermont considers whether he has jurisdiction of detained Tufts University student’s case

There’s a second benefit to the administration: People sent to El Salvador are outside the jurisdiction of United States courts. Judges, the administration argues, can’t order someone sent to El Salvador to be released or shipped back to the U.S. because the U.S. government no longer has control of them.

It’s a potential legal loophole that led Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to issue a grim warning in her opinion in a 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court finding that the administration could not fly alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador with no court hearing, even after Trump invoked an 18th century law last used during World War II to claim wartime powers.

“The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress,” Sotomayor warned. She was writing to dissent from the majority taking the case from the federal judge who had initially barred the administration from any deportations and had ordered planes en route to El Salvador turned around — an order the administration apparently ignored.

A second case highlights the risks of sending people to El Salvador. The administration admits it sent a Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, erroneously to El Salvador. A Salvadoran immigrant, Abrego Garcia, who has not been charged with a crime, had an order against deportation but was shipped to CECOT anyway. On Monday Bukele and Trump scoffed at the idea of sending him back, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the administration to “facilitate” his return.

President Donald Trump, left, greets El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele as Bukele arrives at the White House, Monday, April 14, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Wait, so can they send citizens to El Salvador?

Nothing like this has ever been contemplated in U.S. history, but it seems unlikely. There are other legal barriers besides the fact that you cannot deport U.S. citizens. The United States does have extradition treaties with several countries where it will send a citizen accused of a crime in that country to face trial there. That appears to be the only existing way a U.S. citizen can be forcibly removed from the country under current law.

The Constitution also prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” and one of CECOT’s selling points is that conditions there are far harsher than in prisons in the U.S. As noted above, federal courts have no jurisdiction there, and that may deprive people sent there of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.

“It is illegal to expatriate U.S. citizens for a crime,” wrote Lauren-Brooke Eisen of the Brennan Center for Social Justice in New York.

She noted that even if the administration tries to transfer federal prisoners there, arguing they’re already incarcerated, it could run afoul of the First Step Act that Trump himself championed and signed in 2018. The provision requires that the government try to house federal inmates as close to their homes as possible so their families can visit them — and indeed transfer anyone housed farther than 500 miles from their home to a closer facility.

One last loophole?

There is one potential loophole that the administration could use to send a small group of citizens to El Salvador. They can try to strip the citizenship of people who earned it after immigrating to the United States.

People who were made U.S. citizens after birth can lose that status for a handful of offenses, like funding terrorist organizations or lying on naturalization forms. They would then revert to green card holders, and would be potentially eligible for deportation if convicted of other, serious crimes.

That’s a small, but real, pool of people. Perhaps the most significant thing about it is that it would require loss of citizenship first. In other words, there’s still likely no legal way to force a citizen out of the country. But a few could end up in legal jeopardy anyway.

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport has begun maintenance projects involving temporary runway closures that may mean more airplane noise for some areas nearby.

The first phase started on Monday and is expected to continue through May 23, according to the Metropolitan Airport Commission. The second part will be from Aug. 18 to Sept. 26. By doing the project in two phases, the runway — known as R12-30L — will be open to all aircraft for the majority of the peak summer season.

“This work ensures that critical airport infrastructure maintains the highest level of safety for handling aircraft operations and conforms to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) specifications,” according to MAC officials.

Residents may hear increased air traffic activity overhead due to the change in runway use. Once the work is complete, “the FAA will return MSP to its pre-construction operational patterns,” according to the MAC.

Additional information and updates on the project can be found at the MSP Noise Oversight Committee web page and at the MAC website.

Also, runway use information and flight activity are available on the MAC FlightTracker. And, information about runway closures can be found at metroairports.org/msp-runway-closures.

Those with questions on airfield or aircraft noise or runway closures due to construction can contact the Community Relations Office at 612-726-9411.

Related Articles

Have a REAL ID? If not, prepare for travel delays, MAC says.

Passenger flight to MSP and Air Force jet diverted from potential collision at DC airport

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport upgrading snow removal equipment

FBI: Hoax by two young children responsible for diverted Sun Country flight to Mexico

MSP Sun Country Airlines flight diverted, no threat found

By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press

Fewer people crossed state lines to obtain abortions in 2024 than a year earlier, a new survey has found.

The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, estimates in a report released Tuesday that the overall number of clinician-provided abortions in states where it’s legal rose by less than 1% from 2023 to 2024.

But the number of people crossing state lines for abortions dropped by about 9%.

The report, based on a monthly survey of providers, is the latest look at how the abortion landscape in the U.S. has evolved since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022 in a ruling that eliminated a national constitutional right to abortion and opened the door to state bans and restrictions.

The total number of abortions continued to rise

Guttmacher estimates there were 1.04 million abortions in 2024, up about 1% from its total the previous year.

Multiple studies have found that the total number of abortions in the U.S. has risen since Dobbs, despite some states implementing bans.

Twelve states currently enforce abortion bans with limited exceptions at all stages of pregnancy. Four more have bans that kick in after about six weeks, which is before many women know they’re pregnant.

Guttmacher’s tally does not capture self-managed abortions such as people obtaining abortion pills from community networks, foreign pharmacies or through telehealth from medical providers in states that have laws intended to protect those who send pills into places with bans. There’s a court battle over the constitutionality of such laws. But another survey found that the number of telehealth pills being sent into states with bans has been growing and accounted for about 1 in 10 abortions in the U.S. by the summer of 2024.

Isaac Maddow-Zimet, a data scientist at Guttmacher, said even though the number of abortions is up, it’s likely some people who would like to end their pregnancies are not able to.

“We know that some people are accessing abortion through telehealth,” he said. “And we know it’s not an option for everybody.”

Travel for abortions declined

The number of people crossing state lines for abortions dropped to about 155,000 from nearly 170,000.

The year-to-year impact varies by state.

For instance, about 1 in 8 abortions in Florida in the first half of 2023 were provided to people coming from out of state. By the second half of 2024 — when a ban on abortions after the first six weeks of pregnancy took effect — only about 1 in 50 were for people from another state.

More people traveled to states including Virginia and New York after the Florida law took hold.

A drop in people traveling to Minnesota could be linked to abortions being offered again in clinics in Wisconsin.

Most abortions in Kansas are provided to people from elsewhere and the number grew as clinic capacity expanded.

Obstacles under bans affect some women more than others

A working paper released in March provided different insight into the impact of the bans.

It found that birth rates rose from 2020 to 2023 in counties farther from abortion clinics. Rates rose faster for Black and Hispanic women, those with lower education levels, and people who are unmarried.

“The takeaway is that distance still matters,” said Caitlin Myers, a Middlebury College economic professor and one of the authors of the working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. “It really wasn’t obvious that that would be the case.”

“These bans are more than just policies; these are direct attacks on bodily autonomy,” said Regina Davis Moss, president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda.

The bans also exacerbate the huge disparities in maternal mortality for Black women in the U.S, she said. Black women died around the time of childbirth at a rate nearly 3.5 times higher than white women in 2023.

“We’re going to be faced with increasing numbers of births, which is going to increase the maternal mortality rate, the infant mortality rate and inequities in care,” she said. “It’s very upsetting and sad.”

Bree Wallace, director of case management at the Tampa Bay Abortion Fund in Florida, which helps with the logistics and costs of abortions, said people who consider getting an abortion don’t always know their options.

“Many people don’t know their choices or think that it’s just not possible to go out of state,” she said. “A lot of people hear ‘ban’ or ‘six-week ban’ in their state and that’s it.”

Associated Press science writer Laura Ungar contributed from Louisville, Kentucky.

By STEVE PEOPLES, Associated Press National Politics Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — As President Donald Trump pushes the historical boundaries of executive power, some of the Democratic Party’s core political institutions are preparing for the possibility that the federal government may soon launch criminal investigations against them.

The Democrats’ dominant national fundraising platform, ActBlue, and the party’s largest protest group, Indivisible, are working with their attorneys for just such a scenario, according to officials within both organizations. Trump’s top political allies have suggested both groups should face prosecution.

Other Democratic allies are planning for Trump-backed legal crackdowns as well. Wary of antagonizing the president, most prefer to stay anonymous for now.

“Every one of our clients is concerned about being arbitrarily targeted by the Trump administration. We are going to great lengths to help clients prepare for or defend themselves,” said Ezra Reese, political law chair at Elias Law Group, which represents Democratic groups and candidates and is chaired by Marc Elias, the lawyer who has himself been a Trump target.

FILE – Attorney Marc Elias stands on the plaza of the Supreme Court in Washington, March 21, 2016. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

An FBI spokesperson declined to comment when asked about potential investigations into ActBlue and Indivisible. But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not downplay the threat of a potential criminal probe when asked specifically whether Trump wants the FBI, the Treasury Department or any other federal agency to investigate Democratic groups.

“Anyone who has (not) broken the law should not be worried,” Leavitt told The Associated Press. “If you have broken the law and engaged in the weaponization of justice, then you should be worried. It’s that simple.”

Indeed, far from distancing themselves from talk of retribution, many key Republicans are embracing it.

Trump’s allies argue they are justified in seeking vengeance due to the four criminal prosecutions against Trump, one of which led to multiple felony convictions in New York. There’s no evidence former President Joe Biden influenced the Trump prosecutions in any way.

Matt Schlapp, president of the American Conservative Union, said Democrats needed to be taught not to touch a hot stove.

“Someone needs to get burned for all this activity or they’re just gonna do it again,” he said. “And that’s not hypocrisy; that’s justice.”

Trump has made no secret of his plans to use the power of the federal government to target domestic political adversaries.

During a norm-breaking speech at the Department of Justice last month, Trump cast himself as the country’s “chief law enforcement officer,” a title ordinarily reserved for the attorney general.

On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Justice Department to investigate Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official who anonymously penned a book highly critical of his first presidency. Trump said that Taylor was likely guilty of treason, a crime that can carry the death penalty.

Musk calls Indivisible ‘criminals’

Indivisible has been perhaps the most important group in the Democratic resistance since Trump returned to the White House. The group’s leadership in Washington holds regular calls with state-based activists and recently released a detailed protest guide, which offers specific guidance to hundreds of local chapters across the country.

This year alone, Indivisible groups have hosted more than 1,000 protests covering every state in the nation. The group was a key organizer in the recent Hands Off! protests that attracted hundreds of thousands of people across the country.

Related Articles

Letters: We need St. Paul councilors with business sense

US moves ahead on tariffs with investigations into computer chips, pharmaceuticals

A Palestinian activist expecting a US citizenship interview is arrested instead by ICE in Vermont

Judge in Vermont considers whether he has jurisdiction of detained Tufts University student’s case

Maureen Dowd: A lot about Trump doesn’t add up

Trump top adviser and billionaire Elon Musk has publicly condemned Indivisible as “criminals.”

The statement was an apparent reference to violent attacks against Tesla dealerships and vehicles, which have spiked in recent weeks. Indivisible’s leadership released a guide earlier in the year encouraging protests outside Tesla dealerships, although the guide instructs protesters to remain peaceful and stay off private property.

No charges are known to have been filed against Indivisible or its leaders. But Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin says it’s critical that Democratic institutions work together to speak out against the threats posed by the Trump administration. His organization has been discussing contingency plans with attorneys and other activists in the event that he or other Indivisible leaders face criminal charges.

“They may try to come at us directly, or it’s as likely that their non-state actors are inspired by their lies and propaganda, and try to come at us individually,” Levin said. “And that is a risk in a moment where you’re facing anti-democratic threats like we are.”

“Our choice is, we can be quiet and hope that they won’t target us, or we can try to work as a mass opposition,” he continued. “If you’re not willing to do that, what are you doing here?”

Democrats’ fundraising at risk

Musk, backed by several Republican members of Congress, has also called on the FBI to investigate ActBlue, alleging that the Democratic Party’s main fundraising platform has skirted campaign finance laws and allowed foreign nationals to make illegal contributions to Democratic candidates.

“I think the FBI’s going to do something on ActBlue soon,” Charlie Kirk, a key Trump ally who founded the conservative group Turning Point USA, said at a political event last month in Wisconsin.

ActBlue officials this week told the AP that they would continue to cooperate with a congressional investigation led by House Republicans into allegations of fraud within the organization. ActBlue is preparing a second batch of documents to comply with a new request by House Republicans. Additionally, two ActBlue staffers are expected to testify before a House panel behind closed doors later this month.

Multiple House Republicans in recent weeks have encouraged federal law enforcement agencies to pursue requested criminal investigations into ActBlue.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has asked the Treasury Department to investigate allegations that the nonprofit processed payments to “terror-linked organizations.” Separately, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., sent a letter to the FBI last month claiming that ActBlue is being used to “to skirt the integrity of federal campaign finance laws” by allowing foreign nationals to contribute to campaigns, among other allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

“It must be emphasized that these allegations, were they to prove true, would indicate a serious threat to the integrity of our elections, besides the victimization of American citizens,” Biggs wrote.

ActBlue said it is preparing for the possibility of “many different attacks on various fronts,” including investigations by the FBI or the Treasury Department.

Meanwhile, Democratic candidates are relying on ActBlue to fund their campaigns as never before.

Donors have given more than $400 million to Democratic candidates through ActBlue over the first three months of the year, the organization told the AP. The fundraising haul represents the most money raised in any first quarter in ActBlue’s two-decade history.

While Republicans accuse the group of being funded by wealthy donors, ActBlue acts as a passthrough between donors and candidates that’s funded by a 3.95% processing fee on each donation.

“These unfounded attacks haven’t shaken us — they’ve sharpened our resolve to fuel Democratic wins,” ActBlue spokesperson Megan Hughes said. “As our first-quarter fundraising demonstrates, Democratic grassroots donors are engaged, undeterred and ready to meet this moment.”

Leavitt is one of three administration officials who face a lawsuit from the AP on First- and Fifth Amendment grounds. The AP says the three are punishing the news agency for editorial decisions they oppose. The White House says the AP is not following an executive order to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.