The bill repeals sections 4067–4070 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, codified at 50 U.S.C. 21–24 and commonly known as the Alien Enemies Act. Those provisions have for centuries provided a statutory basis for the apprehension, restraint, and removal of nationals of a hostile power when the United States is at war.
This change matters because it removes an explicit statutory tool that federal executive-branch actors have relied on (or invoked) for detaining noncitizens tied to enemy nations during declared wars. Repeal creates immediate statutory uncertainty about how the government will lawfully treat foreign nationals in a declared war—while leaving intact other authorities (immigration law, laws of war, and inherent constitutional powers) that may be used instead.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill strikes 50 U.S.C. §§21–24 from the U.S. Code, eliminating the statutory framework that authorized arresting, restraining, and removing nationals of an enemy state when the U.S. has declared war. It does not add replacement language or a savings clause.
Who It Affects
Federal departments that deal with national security and immigration—principally DOJ, DHS, and DOD—will lose a specific statutory basis for certain actions against foreign nationals in wartime. Noncitizens from countries with which the U.S. is at war, and attorneys and rights organizations representing them, will see a change in the statutory landscape.
Why It Matters
Repealing the Alien Enemies Act narrows an explicit statutory path for wartime detention of nationals of hostile states, raising questions about whether the executive will rely on immigration statutes, military detention authorities, or inherent constitutional powers instead. That shift affects operational planning, litigation risk, and statutory cleanup across agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Neighbors Not Enemies Act performs a surgical statutory repeal: it removes the four codified sections that make up the Alien Enemies Act. Historically enacted in the 1790s, those provisions gave the President and the executive branch a clear, domestic-law mechanism to detain and remove foreign nationals of an enemy state once Congress declared war.
The text of this bill does not replace that mechanism, nor does it preserve any ongoing actions via a transitional or savings clause.
Practically, the repeal changes the legal toolkit available in a declared-war scenario. Immigration law already provides removal and detention authorities against noncitizens for certain conduct and immigration violations, and the laws of war and the military detention regime provide routes to detain enemy combatants captured in armed conflict.
Repealing the Alien Enemies Act removes a statutory, civil-law pathway that specifically targeted nationals of an enemy power; it does not, on its face, repeal military detention powers or immigration enforcement authorities.Because the bill contains no implementation instructions, its effect will play out through agency policy changes and litigation. Agencies that previously cited the Alien Enemies Act when detaining or regulating foreign nationals will need to identify alternative legal authorities and adjust policies, and courts will likely be asked to resolve whether the executive retains equivalent authority under other statutory or constitutional sources.
The lack of a savings clause also leaves unanswered whether any ongoing detentions premised solely on the repealed provisions remain valid.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals 50 U.S.C. §§21–24 (formerly sections 4067–4070 of the Revised Statutes), the four codified provisions known as the Alien Enemies Act.
Under the repealed provisions, the government had an explicit statutory basis to apprehend, restrain, and remove nationals of an enemy state once the United States was at war.
The Act’s application historically depended on the formal trigger of a U.S. declaration of war rather than lesser uses of force or authorizations of military force.
The bill contains no replacement authority and includes no savings or transitional clause to preserve actions taken under the repealed sections.
Repeal does not directly alter other legal authorities—such as immigration statutes (the INA), laws of war, or military detention powers—that the executive might use instead, but it removes one discrete civil-law pathway and could shift where and how detention decisions are made.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act as the "Neighbors Not Enemies Act." This is purely nominal; it has no legal effect on interpretation, but it signals legislative intent and frames the bill’s purpose for stakeholders and courts that may later consider legislative history.
Repeal of the Alien Enemies Act (50 U.S.C. 21–24)
Directly repeals the four statutory sections that constituted the Alien Enemies Act. That removal takes the form of a straight repeal: the text eliminates the code sections rather than amending or narrowing them. The practical consequence is immediate statutory elimination of the specific civil-law authority that the executive could invoke to detain or remove nationals of an enemy state during a declared war.
No savings clause, no replacement authority, no transitional guidance
The bill does not include a savings clause preserving actions taken under the repealed sections, nor does it propose substitute language or cross‑statutory adjustments. That omission matters: agencies and courts must determine whether existing detentions or administrative actions premised solely on the Alien Enemies Act survive repeal, and Congress would need to pass additional text if it intends to preserve particular operational authorities or procedures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Noncitizen residents from countries that might be designated enemy states, because the specific statutory framework that allowed categorical detention based on nationality is removed, reducing one pathway for mass or nationality-based detention.
- Civil liberties and human‑rights organizations, which gain a clearer statutory argument against a historical tool used to authorize detention based solely on nationality during declared wars.
- Defense attorneys and immigration counsel, who can challenge detention regimes that previously relied on the Alien Enemies Act without contending with that statute’s existence.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Homeland Security (including ICE and CBP) and DOJ, which lose an explicit statutory authority for certain wartime measures and will need to revise operational plans and legal rationales.
- Department of Defense, which may face more frequent reliance on military detention authorities or ad hoc executive orders, increasing civil‑military legal complexity.
- Congress and legislative drafters, who may be compelled to draft successor legislation or clarifying provisions to authoritatively define lawful wartime detention and removal procedures, creating political and drafting burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: eliminating a long-standing statutory basis for nationality‑based detention (strengthening civil‑liberty protections and limiting discriminatory policy tools) versus preserving a clear, codified authority for the government to act swiftly in declared wars (reducing legal ambiguity for national security operations). Repeal solves one problem by removing a contested power, but in doing so it risks pushing the government toward other, less transparent or differently constrained authorities—creating a trade‑off between rule‑bound statutory clarity and the desire to curtail a power many see as prone to abuse.
Repealing the Alien Enemies Act simplifies the statutory landscape by removing an authority that has been criticized for enabling nationality‑based detention. But the repeal also creates legal uncertainty.
Because the bill supplies no savings clause and no substitute authority, it forces agencies to pivot to other, imperfectly fitting legal bases (immigration statutes, laws of war, or constitutional wartime powers). That shift could fragment where decisions are made—moving matters from civil immigration channels into military or executive domains that offer different procedures and review pathways.
A second implementation challenge is statutory interdependence. Various regulations, agency practices, and older statutes may reference the repealed provisions either directly or by historical reliance; identifying and remediating those references requires administrative review.
Litigation is likely: detained noncitizens, NGOs, or the government itself could seek judicial resolution on whether repeal invalidates ongoing detentions or how other authorities interact with the statutory gap. Finally, repeal does not settle substantive policy questions about how to balance national security and individual rights in wartime—it reallocates the legal tools and shifts the arena in which those trade-offs will be litigated and administered.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.