Kristi Noem Is Dangerously Ignorant
Then there's Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose ignorance appears to be utterly genuine.
Appearing before a Senate hearing this morning, Noem was asked by Senator Maggie Hassan, 'What is habeas corpus?' Noem, whose hearing prep clearly did not anticipate any questions with Latin terms in them, replied, 'Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to—'
At this point, Hassan interjected to explain that habeas corpus is, in fact, 'the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people.' In other words, it's the opposite of what Noem said. It's not a right the president possesses, but a right the people possess against the president.
Habeas is an extremely basic right, for the obvious reason that, if the government can simply throw anybody in jail without justifying their imprisonment in court, its power is absolute. It dates back to the Magna Carta, and is one of the few rights the Founders included in the original Constitution, without waiting for the addition of the Bill of Rights. Noem—the head of a department with a budget exceeding $100 billion a year, more than a quarter million employees, and vast domestic enforcement powers that critics warned upon its creation had dystopian police-state potential—would ideally be familiar with the concept.
The second Trump era has produced two broad castes of post-liberal spokespeople. The first category is the lawyers and other theorists who, in the wake of Trump's flailing first term, set out to reimagine a second Trump presidency that would ruthlessly deploy the power of the state to terrorize the opposition. This category is represented by figures like Office of Management and Budget Director Russel Vought and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.
McKay Coppins: The visionary of Trump 2.0
Earlier this month, Miller appeared outside the White House and replied to a question about habeas corpus, offered up by a reporter for the far-right site Gateway Pundit, with a confident-sounding explanation: 'Well, the Constitution is clear, and that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion.'
The administration has sought to leverage its wartime powers into the kind of limitless authority that the Founders directly closed off. Miller's logic is that the presence of foreign-born gang members amounts to an 'invasion,' thus permitting the president to employ emergency wartime authority, which in Miller's account entails suspending habeas corpus.
Miller's reasoning contains obvious factual and legal flaws. The presence of foreign gang members is hardly tantamount to an invasion, and the Constitution does not actually give presidents the unilateral power to suspend habeas. Abraham Lincoln famously suspended the right during the Civil War, but this is widely held to have been a constitutional violation, not proof of concept. ('Scholars and courts have overwhelmingly endorsed the position that, Lincoln's unilateral suspensions of the writ notwithstanding, the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to decide when the predicates specified by the Suspension Clause are satisfied,' wrote Amy Coney Barrett in 2014). If the president could suspend habeas corpus simply on account of foreign-born people engaging in criminal activity, a condition that has obtained continuously throughout American history, then the people would functionally have no rights at all.
Noem did not display a strong enough grasp of Miller's quasi-legal rationale to repeat it in her testimony. She appears to belong to the smaller, second category of Trumpian post-liberals: those who believe that Trump axiomatically possesses unlimited rights.
That category includes Trump himself. The president has frequently likened his own power to that of a king. He has tweeted, 'He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,' and when asked if he needs to follow the Constitution, replied, 'I don't know.' While Trump has clearly been exposed to legal justifications for expanding his power, he has never been able to repeat them coherently. His best effort was perhaps the moment during his first term when he said, 'I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.' This was close in the sense that Article II indeed enumerates the president's powers. It was off base in the sense that those powers are, well, enumerated.
Noem appears to subscribe to Trump's reading of the Constitution. A lack of familiarity with the Miller-style pseudo-legal reasoning has not prevented her from executing the administration's agenda. She has swept up immigrants, shipped them off to an El Savadoran mega-prison, and posed menacingly for photos in front of their cell. That dozens of them never even violated U.S. immigration law, according to the Cato Institute, is a mere detail.
Conor Friedersdorf: Donald Trump's cruel and unusual innovations
Upon having habeas defined for her by Hassan, Noem recovered enough to declare, 'I support habeas corpus,' as if it were a bill before Congress or an aspirational slogan. Then she immediately contradicted herself by adding, 'I also recognize that the President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not.'
If the president had the authority to suspend the right of habeas corpus, then it wouldn't be a right. That's how rights work. Generations of Americans feared that liberty might perish under the thumb of ruthless leaders who ignored or undermined constitutional rights. There turns out to be an equal threat from leaders who simply don't understand them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tariff rebate checks in 2025? What we know about current legislation
(WJW) – It's not a pandemic stimulus check, but Congress is currently weighing the possibility of sending the American people more money. As part of the American Worker Rebate Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri in July, people would receive hundreds of dollars in tariff rebate checks, which work to counteract the financial burden imposed on families by the Trump administration's tariffs. As the bill stands now, a household would get $600 for every child and adult – meaning a family of four would receive $2,400. Check amounts go down for those U.S. residents who are making more than $150,000 as a family or $75,000 individually. The bill has not been passed by the Senate or the House, and it must overcome multiple obstacles before being brought to President Trump's desk to sign. However, last month, Trump did say he was 'thinking about' approving a rebate. If the revenue from the latest tariff rollout exceeds projections, the bill leaves room for a larger rebate to be sent out to the American people. So far, there has been no word from Congress or the IRS on the possibility of a fourth stimulus check, like those issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A rebate is a refund of something already paid for, while a stimulus is simply money given to pump up the economy. The U.S. Senate is currently on break for the summer and will be back in action on Sept. 2.
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Newsom outlines plan to combat Trump, GOP redistricting
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will speak to reporters Thursday afternoon as the mid-decade redistricting battle heats up across the U.S. ahead of the 2026 midterms, a day after announcing the ' Liberation Day ' event. His remarks come as Democrats push back against GOP 'gerrymandering' efforts in Texas that could give Republicans five additional seats in next year's election. Newsom sent a letter to President Trump and red state leaders earlier this week urging them to end the redistricting war. After Trump missed the deadline to respond, the governor said the Golden State would also be redrawing its House maps to counteract attempts to 'rig' the lines in the Lone Star State. The event is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
