Avelo Airlines has been making headlines in Connecticut—not for its budget-friendly flights or new routes, but for something far more serious: its decision to contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to operate deportation flights.

Last week, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong reached out to Avelo with a pointed list of questions about this contract. His concern? That Avelo, a company supported with millions of dollars in state tax breaks and airport infrastructure improvements, is now profiting from deportation flights that may violate human rights and even U.S. law.

In the letter, Tong demanded copies of the contracts between Avelo and the Federal government, as well as an assurance that they will not operate deportation flights in Connecticut.

Avelo’s response?

They wiped their ass with it.

Instead of answering the eight clear questions posed by Tong’s office, Avelo’s response deflected. The airline insisted that the federal government—not Avelo—dictates the procedures for these flights. They also declined to share a copy of the DHS contract, advising the Attorney General’s Office to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request instead.

Tong did not mince words in his reply. “Today’s response from Avelo is totally unacceptable because it contains no response at all,” he said. He described Avelo’s letter as “overly legalistic and technical,” calling it “insulting and condescending to the people of Connecticut.” In his view, Avelo’s refusal to provide basic information about its involvement with deportation flights is not just dismissive—it’s a betrayal of public trust.

Why This Matters

Avelo’s relationship with the State of Connecticut isn’t just incidental. The airline has been the recipient of state and local support, including an exemption from the aviation fuel tax and infrastructure upgrades at Tweed-New Haven Airport. In short, Connecticut helped Avelo take off—literally.

Now, that investment is under scrutiny. If Avelo is flying deportation missions that may include children in shackles or people being removed from the country despite legal protections, the State has every right to reconsider its partnership.

Tong put it bluntly: “It is clear all they intend to do is take state support and make money off other people’s suffering.”

What’s at Stake

At the core of this conflict are deeply human questions: Who gets deported? Under what conditions? Are families being separated? Are passengers restrained in ways that could prevent them from escaping in an emergency? Are children involved?

These aren’t theoretical concerns. The Attorney General cited a 2018 incident in which a federal judge ordered a deportation flight bound for El Salvador to turn around—an order the Trump administration ignored. Tong wants assurances that Avelo won’t participate in similar acts of defiance.

Among the questions Avelo refused to answer:

• Will Avelo operate deportation flights from Connecticut airports?
• Will they agree never to fly passengers in shackles—especially children?
• Will they ensure that evacuation is possible for all passengers, regardless of restraints?
• Will they respect court orders halting deportations?

For now, Avelo is staying silent. The AG gave them until April 15 to answer; no word yet on what those responses were, or if they even bothered to answer.

What Happens Next?

The ball is now in Connecticut’s court. Tong has hinted that the state may need to reevaluate its relationship with Avelo, potentially pulling back on subsidies or support if the airline won’t engage in a serious conversation about its role in immigration enforcement.

This issue also raises a broader question: When businesses partner with public institutions, what obligations do they owe the public? Avelo isn’t just a private company—it’s one that benefits from taxpayer money. And with that support comes an expectation of accountability, especially when fundamental rights and legal protections are at stake.

IF YOU NEED A LAWYER CONTACT US