The NGO, American Oversight, linked to the Democratic Party, has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding the extradition of members of Tren de Aragua to El Salvador. The action, initiated under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeks a court order to compel the government to release photographs, videos, and audio recordings related to the removal of individuals to the Central American nation on March 15 and 16, 2025.
The lawsuit alleges that the DOJ failed to meet FOIA deadlines and did not comply with American Oversight’s request for expedited processing. The action focuses on government activity that allegedly involved the deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act, specifically members of the Tren de Aragua group, and includes accusations that federal officials disregarded court orders to stop those removals.
American Oversight asks the court to compel the DOJ to produce the non-exempt records and to process the request promptly.
Now, are American Oversight’s actions directed at promoting “truth, accountability, and democracy,” as stated in their mission, or are they simply aimed at undermining Donald Trump’s administration across its two terms? Do they show the same interest in cases involving Democratic administrations?
About American Oversight
On its website, American Oversight describes itself as an “independent, nonprofit watchdog that promotes truth, accountability, and democracy by enforcing the public’s right to access government records.”
It states that its establishment in March 2017 was a response “to the unprecedented challenges that the Trump administration posed to our nation’s democratic ideals and institutions.”
An article from Politico describes it as a “left-wing watchdog group” aimed at helping Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives or the Senate in the 2026 midterms, which would give the party the ability to issue subpoenas, schedule committee hearings, and initiate agency probes.
In other words, the objective of American Oversight (AO) is purely partisan and, in that light, since its founding began investigations against the Trump Administration, basing its requests and lawsuits on the FOIA. Just in 2018, it filed over 1,000 FOIA requests and 56 lawsuits regarding open records against the Trump administration.
It is worth noting that the actions of American Oversight are coordinated with those of other organizations that also emerged in 2018, such as Restore Public Trust (RPT)—composed of former officials and agents of the Barack Obama administration, affiliated with the Democratic Party—and Democracy Forward. Both are linked to significant left-wing Democratic donors and made up of staff with a history of working in leftist parties.
These organizations reportedly originated from a January 2017 meeting at a Florida resort, where various center-left party donors agreed to generate anti-Trump media coverage through requests and lawsuits targeting the president, his administration, and his family.
The Lawsuit by American Oversight Against the U.S. DOJ
On July 10, 2025, they filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking information regarding the activities of Principal Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove.
Bove is described as a senior DOJ official who previously served as the primary defense attorney for President Trump and is the president’s nominee to serve as a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Based on the FOIA, American Oversight aims to compel the DOJ to release all video, audio, and photographic records related to the expulsion of individuals to El Salvador on March 15 and 16, 2025.
The lawsuit states that these events occurred after President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 against the Tren de Aragua—a group designated as a terrorist organization—claiming it represents a threat of “invasion or predatory incursion.” Allegations suggest that senior DOJ officials—most notably Emil Bove—directed attorneys to prepare to ignore court orders that may halt the expulsions.
It is asserted that an emergency order issued by Judge James E. Boasberg to stop the deportations was allegedly ignored, leading to the transportation of Venezuelan individuals to a mega-prison in El Salvador.
American Oversight argues that the DOJ violated FOIA by failing to respond to its record request within the legal deadlines, improperly denying expedited processing, and unlawfully withholding information of vital public interest. They believe the requested information is crucial for clarifying if government officials defied a federal court order, raising serious doubts about government integrity and generating exceptional media interest.
The Key Meeting and Presidential Directive
On March 14, 2025, Emil Bove—then acting Associate Attorney General—and Paul Perkins—Associate Attorney General—held a meeting with attorneys from the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL).
During the meeting, Bove informed the attorneys that planes transporting individuals for expulsion under the AEA would take off that weekend “regardless of what.” Critically, he instructed them to consider ignoring any court orders attempting to prohibit those expulsions.
On March 15, 2025, President Trump issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the AEA. The proclamation accused the Tren de Aragua of committing a “predatory invasion or incursion” against the United States, allegedly supported by Maduro’s regime.
The proclamation mandated the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to “apprehend, detain, secure, and remove” all Venezuelan citizens over 14 years old, who are not naturalized or lawful permanent residents and are members of Tren de Aragua, designating them as “Enemy Aliens.” American Oversight points out that Congress has not declared war on Venezuela, which is a requirement of the AEA.
The Expulsions, the Court Order, and the Consequences
On March 15, 2025, Venezuelan citizens detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in Texas were taken from their cells, shackled, and boarded onto planes. None were given the chance to prove they were not members of Tren de Aragua.
The planes remained on the runway for hours, and many passengers reportedly panicked and pleaded for information, which was not provided.
On the same day, Judge James E. Boasberg of the District Court for the District of Columbia issued an emergency order for the government to “not relinquish custody of the men.”
The lawsuit claims that some government officials involved in the operation ignored Judge Boasberg’s order. The planes first flew to Honduras and then to El Salvador.
The Venezuelan passengers were transferred to the Terrorism Detention Center, a mega-prison in El Salvador known for torturing its inmates, according to the lawsuit.
On March 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in two separate cases (Trump v. J.G.G. and A.A.R.P. v. Trump), prohibited the expulsions under the proclamation, ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment required greater notice than what had been given to the detainees.
Whistleblower Complaint and Judicial Nomination
On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, then acting deputy director of the OIL, filed a whistleblower complaint detailing the alleged misconduct of Emil Bove and other officials, including Bove’s order on March 14 to ignore potential court orders.
On June 25, 2025, during his confirmation hearing for a position on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Bove was questioned about the accusations. He responded that he “did not remember” instructing federal prosecutors to defy court orders.
The FOIA Request and Government Response
On July 15, 2025, American Oversight submitted FOIA requests to three agencies seeking the same records. The lawsuit focuses exclusively on the request directed to the DOJ.
Requested Records:
“All photographs, video recordings, and/or audio recordings of the removal of individuals to El Salvador taken or captured on March 15, 2025, and March 16, 2025. This includes—but is not limited to—video recordings of boardings on planes in the United States or disembarkations of planes in El Salvador.”
FOIA Process Timeline
DateAgencyAction/Response
July 15, 2025 | DOJ, DHS, ICE | American Oversight submits identical FOIA requests, asking for expedited processing.
July 18, 2025 | DHS | Acknowledges receipt, denies expedited processing, and refers the request to the DOJ.
July 22, 2025 | ICE | Acknowledges receipt, denies expedited processing, and refers the request to the DOJ.
July 24, 2025 | DOJ | Acknowledges receipt of the original request (FOIA-2025-05887), denies part of the expedited request and leaves the other pending. Invokes “unusual circumstances” to extend the deadline for response.
July 25, 2025 | DOJ | Acknowledges receipt of the request referred by ICE and confusingly instructs American Oversight to request records directly from the “Government of El Salvador, Office of Public Records.”
August 11, 2025 | DOJ | Denies the pending part of the expedited request and re-invokes a deadline extension without justifying the “unusual circumstances.”
August 12, 2025 | American Oversight | Files an administrative appeal regarding the DOJ’s determination on the request referred by ICE.
September 23, 2025 | DOJ | Notifies that it is returning the ICE request to its internal unit to direct it to the correct components of the DOJ.
September 25, 2025 | American Oversight | Files the lawsuit after more than 50 business days passed without a determination on the original request to the DOJ.
Legal Basis of the Lawsuit
American Oversight alleges that the DOJ violated the FOIA in three distinct ways, thus exhausting its administrative remedies and entitled to judicial review.
Charge I: Failure to Grant Expedited Processing
The organization claims that its request qualifies for expedited processing under two criteria:
- Urgency of public information: the records are necessary to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity.
- Government integrity: the issue is of “widespread and exceptional media interest, with possible doubts about government integrity affecting public trust,” specifically, whether officials ignored a court order.
The DOJ denied the request for expedited processing.
Charge II: Failure to Conduct Adequate Record Searches
The lawsuit asserts that the DOJ did not promptly review the agency’s records to locate those that respond to American Oversight’s FOIA request.
This failure to conduct an adequate search constitutes a violation of the FOIA.
Charge III: Improper Withholding of Non-Exempt Records
The DOJ is required to release any non-exempt records within twenty (20) business days.
By failing to produce the records or demonstrate that they are legally exempt from production, the DOJ is improperly withholding the requested documents.
Furthermore, the DOJ is accused of not segregating exempt information from records that are otherwise non-exempt.
Relief Requested
American Oversight respectfully requests the court to order the following measures:
- Expedited Processing: Order the DOJ to process the FOIA request promptly.
- Thorough Search: Order the DOJ to conduct a reasonable search to identify all records responsive to the request.
- Production of Records: Order the DOJ to produce all non-exempt records within twenty business days or as the court considers appropriate.
- Cease Retention: Prohibit the DOJ from continuing to withhold any non-exempt records.
- Costs and Fees: Award American Oversight the costs of the proceeding, including reasonable attorney fees.
- Other Relief: Grant any other relief the court finds just and appropriate.
Watch on Sin Filtros “The West was confiscated, the global conflagration”: