the news now

The world's news, cross-checked among reputable sources.

This is a new development in a story we have covered before · earlier coverage

Afghan Woman Deported in First Use of Secretive U.S. Terrorism Court

2 sources across 2 countries · United Kingdom · United States

Who reported this

  • Reuters United Kingdom · Centre · Thomson Reuters Corporation
  • Al-Monitor United States · Centre · Jamal Daniel

What the colours mean

  • Left
  • Centre-left
  • Centre
  • Centre-right
  • Right
  • A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.

Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.

Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.

The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.

Every outlet covering this story shares the same political lean; read with that in mind.

The United States has deported Nazira Haji Zada, a 47 year old Afghan woman and lawful permanent resident of Texas, in the first case pursued by the Department of Justice through the Alien Terrorist Removal Court. The court, created by Congress in 1996, had remained unused for nearly 30 years. The Justice Department accused Haji Zada of helping conceal a failed Islamic State inspired plot to commit a mass shooting on Election Day 2024. While her son and son in law pleaded guilty to related charges last year, Haji Zada was never charged with a crime.

According to unsealed court documents, Haji Zada agreed last month that she was an alien terrorist subject to removal, leading Chief Judge Joan Ericksen to approve the deportation. U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche described the case as a win for national security and the rule of law. The deportation is part of a series of aggressive immigration crackdown measures by the administration of President Donald Trump.

Public defender Matthew Farley, who represented Haji Zada, stated that her consent to removal was not an endorsement of the court's legitimacy. He argued that the process, which allows the government to rely on classified evidence that defendants and their attorneys cannot review, is a violation of due process. Farley expressed confidence that the court will be struck down as unconstitutional if a judge is asked to address the issue.

How each side framed it

Centre
The reporting focused on the legal novelty of the court and the tension between national security claims and due process rights.

Sources

100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.