Kristi Noem faces angry protests as she collects doctorate at South Dakota university
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, a former South Dakota governor, faced protests as she received an honorary doctorate at Dakota State University in Madison, as the school hosted its commencement ceremonies on Saturday.
Protesters showed up with signs to show their displeasure at the selection of Noem as this year's commencement speaker. The secretary has been at the forefront of President Donald Trump's hardline immigration agenda and mass deportation efforts.
'We don't think that she is somebody that deserves any sort of honor from anybody,' protester Susan Wicks told Dakota News Now. 'She's currently right now violating the constitution, deporting people to foreign detainment centers without any due process.'
'I think that recently she's shown herself to be a tool of the Trump administration and implementing policies that go against the Constitution of the United States,' fellow protester John Nelson told the outlet.
Wicks added that the university 'didn't listen to the town, the faculty or their students, and we think that's abhorrent.'
At the Dakota State Fieldhouse, Noem received an honorary doctorate in public service. The school pointed to Noem's work advocating for the university and its programs focusing on cybersecurity.
During the ceremony, Dakota State University President José-Marie Griffiths said that as South Dakota governor, Noem 'was always ready to listen to our proposals, ask insightful questions to learn more about our plans, and was eager to move forward to support those initiatives.'
Some students chose not to participate in the ceremony. Max Lerchen, who graduated with a master's in business administration, was one of those who took part after considering protesting as he disagreed with the selection of Noem 'from the get-go.'
'This is a degree that I've worked hard for and many others have worked hard for,' Lerchen told Dakota News Now. 'While I support the decision of those to not participate and I respect them for using their voices that way, I did not want to give Secretary Noem the power over me making decisions regarding my accomplishment and my day, and I'm very happy to see many others make that same choice as well.'
'I wanted to make sure I spent the day with my friends and my family, the people who supported me and make sure that I still celebrated regardless of the decision made,' he added.
Some students who chose to protest said they were locked out of campus buildings where they had stored their signs.
Lerchen, however, said he didn't think it was intentional.
'A lot of our facilities around here, when they're not in use, are locked. That's not an uncommon thing,' he told Dakota News Now.
He added that the university 'made a decision that I disagree with to select and honor Secretary Noem with a degree, but I do not think any of the actions by the university were meant to be malicious.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Campaign Firm Is Cashing In on the Admin's Ads Praising Him
Donald Trump's top campaign firm has quietly handled the administration's television advertisements thanking the president for closing the border and locking up criminals, according to a Rolling Stone review. Strategic Media Services Inc. does not appear in any publicly available records regarding the Department of Homeland Security's controversial $200 million ad campaign. However, the ad buying firm — which was the single-biggest vendor for Trump's 2024 campaign — is the only company that's been associated with DHS' ads in filings with the Federal Communications Commission since the department announced the ads in February. A DHS spokesperson denies knowing anything about Strategic Media Services, and says the firm isn't one of the department's vendors. 'DHS doesn't have control of subcontractors and cannot tell a vendor who or who not to hire,' they add. Strategic Media Services did not respond to outreach from Rolling Stone. The Trump administration has faced scrutiny over its profligate, political-style ad campaign, in which Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly thanks the president while attempting to scare immigrants into leaving the United States or never coming here at all. The ad campaign is one of many ways that Trump and his administration are marshaling vast public resources to make the president feel good about himself. In one set of ads, Noem thanks Trump for 'securing our border and putting America first,' while telling undocumented immigrants: 'We will find you and deport you.' In another, she credits 'President Trump's leadership' for her Department of Homeland Security having caught several people accused of heinous crimes. A Trump White House official says that 'it is normal for an agency head to thank their principal — in this instance the president of the United States — for their policies and leadership.' While Trump has purged the federal workforce and slashed government programs in the name of eliminating waste and abuse, his administration determined there to be such 'an unusual and compelling urgency' for this $200 million ad campaign that officials selected two Republican firms to work on the ads without a competitive bidding process. One of the firms, called People Who Think, has ties to former top Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski, a longtime Noem confidant who is reportedly acting as her 'gatekeeper' at DHS. (They have both denied reports that they had an affair.) The second vendor, Safe America Media, is a newly created shell company operating at the home of GOP consultant Mike McElwain. Rolling Stone attempted to call McElwain for this story, but the man who picked up immediately hung up the phone and did not respond to texts. People Who Think did not respond to a request for comment. Officials specifically exempted the DHS ads from review by Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency. The DHS briefly attempted to fund these ads with money from its Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, an oversight office the administration has tried to gut, but backtracked after Rolling Stone reported on the maneuver. The involvement of Strategic Media Services, the Trump campaign's ad buyer, has not been disclosed in government procurement files or spending data. Trump's campaign committee disclosed paying $270 million to Strategic Media Services during the 2024 election — or more than half of what the campaign raised, according to federal election records. Most of the spending went toward ad placements. Dozens of FCC records show the firm buying TV time for DHS ads in recent months. The firm's buys can be traced to a 30-second version of the ad in which Noem starts: 'Thank you, President Donald J. Trump, for securing our border and putting America first.' Strategic Media Services also apparently placed an ad in which Noem says: 'An accused rapist, murderer and child pornographer. All illegal aliens caught because of President Trump's leadership.' Noem pledges in that ad that 'if you're here illegally, you will be fined nearly $1,000 a day, imprisoned, and deported,' as video plays showing her touring CECOT — the notorious mega-prison in El Salvador where Trump shipped hundreds of immigrants without due process, in open defiance of a judge's order. After encouraging immigrants to self-deport, Noem concludes: 'Under President Trump, America will be protected.' So far, DHS has disclosed spending roughly $77 million on the ads, federal records show. Tony Carrk, executive director at the watchdog tells Rolling Stone, 'President Trump and his allies in Congress say they have no choice but to rip away health care and basic food aid from millions of working people and seniors. Yet there's somehow plenty of money for more Trump tax breaks for his billionaire donors and for an overtly political taxpayer-funded vanity project to repair Kristi Noem's image after her many scandals. That's the Trump administration in a nutshell: There's always enough taxpayer money to promote their brands or enrich themselves and wealthy insiders — but no money left to help everyday Americans get ahead.' In a budget hearing in May, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) pressed Noem on the way her department is using the public's money, including her spending '$200 million for an ad campaign fawning over President Trump's supposed accomplishments.' 'You're just spending recklessly and it would seem wastefully, without authorization,' Blumenthal said. 'That's against the law.' More from Rolling Stone Inside the Billion-Dollar Effort to Make Trump Feel Good About Himself Jimmy Kimmel Roasts Trump and Musk Feud: 'It's Even Better Than I Imagined' Bromance Is Dead: Splitsville for Besties Trump and Musk Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Debates over presidential power to suspend habeas corpus resurface in Trump administration
The principle of habeas corpus, a legal phrase, is a simple one: Translated from the Latin as 'produce the body,' it provides that a judge may compel prosecutors to supply evidence to determine whether someone has been legally detained or arrested. In the U.S., a detained or arrested individual, or their legal representative, may ask a judge to decide based on the evidence presented whether the detainee has been legally confined. That process is termed 'seeking a writ.' Suspending the privilege of the writ, also known as 'suspending the writ,' denies that individual or their representation from making that request or a judge from honoring it. The 'privilege' in that phrase is a right of the accused. In the past few months, members of the Trump administration have raised the issue of the president's power to suspend the privilege of habeas corpus. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in May 2025 shared with the media the news that administration officials were exploring the possibility of suspending the privilege of the writ to help the administration deport immigrants quickly. Eleven days later, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem declared at a congressional hearing that habeas corpus 'is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country,' a misunderstanding of this foundational legal right immediately challenged by New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan. Article I of the U.S. Constitution declares that 'the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' Suspension is thus a grave and serious matter. This is not the first time that Americans have debated which branch of government – the executive branch or Congress – has the power to suspend the privilege of the writ and under what circumstances it may do so. Habeas corpus became a major point of controversy during the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln suspended the privilege of the writ, first in parts of Maryland and later throughout the nation, without seeking prior congressional approval. While the Constitution provides for the suspension of the writ, the document is silent as to who has the power to exercise this authority. Although most of this section of the Constitution concerns the powers of Congress, it also addresses the power and authority of other branches in specific instances. And the use of the passive voice – 'shall not be suspended' – in this section leaves the question of who can suspend the writ open to interpretation. The questions of who may suspend the privilege of the writ and under what circumstances emerged in the spring of 1861. On April 12, Confederate forces fired on U.S.-controlled Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, an act that is considered the formal start of the war. A week later, Marylanders supporting secession clashed with militia from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania who were making their way through Baltimore to defend Washington. Lincoln refused to honor requests from Maryland Governor Thomas Hicks and Baltimore Mayor George Brown to avoid transporting reinforcements through Baltimore. The president initially tried to skirt any conflict by routing the reinforcements through Annapolis. This proved a stopgap measure. On April 27, Lincoln authorized General Winfield Scott, commanding general of the U.S. Army, to suspend the privilege of the writ between Philadelphia and Washington, if necessary. This would permit arbitrary arrests and detaining of people determined to be acting in support of the insurrection. To protect national security, U.S. military authorities arrested John Merryman on May 25, 1861. Merryman, who was from Baltimore, was suspected of involvement in destroying railroad bridges to obstruct Union troop movements. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney honored a request from Merryman's lawyers to issue a writ of habeas corpus, only to have federal military authorities refuse to produce Merryman, who remained at his cell in Fort McHenry. Taney then ruled that neither Lincoln nor military personnel under his command could suspend the privilege of the writ when it came to civilians such as Merryman. 'If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the Legislature to say so,' wrote Taney, quoting an 1807 opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall. Days later, on June 1, Taney offered a more extended decision reflecting his reasoning that Congress, not the president, could suspend the privilege of the writ. Taney was challenging the president's authority to act unilaterally. Lincoln ignored Taney's ruling. He reasoned that in time of emergency, especially with Congress not in session, he – as president – was compelled to act in the interests of national security. He did so to protect the movement of troops through Maryland to defend the national capital. Not only did Lincoln's order remain in place, but the president later expanded its geographic scope in several instances, most notably in September 1862. On the heels of issuing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln authorized the detention of individuals accused of obstructing efforts to raise troops or who sought to support the rebellion. Unwilling to concede that Lincoln's actions need not seek congressional approval, Congress, first in 1861, then through the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 offered retroactive sanction of the actions of the executive branch and, in 1863, empowered Lincoln to suspend the privilege of the writ in the future in the interests of national security for the duration of the rebellion. Democrats, however, criticized Lincoln's actions as arbitrary, unconstitutional and smacking of tyranny. Almost a decade later, in 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant declined to act on his own to suspend the privilege of the writ to prosecute white supremacist terrorists in the Reconstruction South, requiring that Congress first pass legislation authorizing him to do so. Since the Civil War, only once has a president unilaterally suspended the privilege of the writ without prior congressional authorization. That's what President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, in order to combat any suspicious activity that might be construed as espionage. With Congress currently in session, lawmakers could authorize the president to suspend the privilege of the writ to set aside debates over executive overreach. Otherwise, presidents might define as emergencies situations that do not meet the extreme circumstances envisioned by the Constitution while sidestepping congressional approval. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Brooks D. Simpson, Arizona State University Read more: Habeas corpus: A thousand-year-old legal principle for defending rights that's getting a workout under the Trump administration Supreme Court's decision on deportations gave both the Trump administration and ACLU reasons to claim a victory − but noncitizens clearly lost How constitutional guardrails have always contained presidential ambitions Brooks D. Simpson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Why are ICE agents running amok? Because they can.
As the Trump administration pushes for more mass deportations, law enforcement officers from the Department of Homeland Security are suddenly everywhere. In San Diego, Homeland Security officers conducted a SWAT-style raid on a restaurant, handcuffing 19 employees over an hour and slamming the manager against a wall in the process. Eventually, they arrested four people. The raid was so heavy-handed that the officers had to deploy flashbang grenades to escape from the angry crowd that gathered in response. Even members of Congress aren't safe. Last week, Homeland Security officers forced their way into Rep. Jerry Nadler's (D) New York office without a warrant. When one of the staffers protested, she was handcuffed and detained. The cases you hear about are only the tip of the iceberg. Federal officers are fanning out across the country, conducting raids, traffic stops, even scooping people up at courthouses when they appear for immigration hearings and carting them away in leg irons and shackles — harsh treatment that you seldom see even when felons are arrested. This heavy-handedness and cruelty isn't a glitch — it's intentional, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Tom Homan, President Trump's border czar, attempt to frighten immigrants into leaving the country. Even legal residents and American citizens are getting caught up in the crackdown. And the worst part is, while things like barging into a congressman's office and detaining his staffers aren't legal, there is nothing anyone can do about it. If Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents force their way into your house without a warrant, slap you around and detain your family at gunpoint while conducting an illegal search, you have no way of getting your constitutional claims into federal court. As a practical matter, these agents are above the law and cannot be held accountable for violating your constitutional rights. Why this is true is yet another example of our system of checks and balances failing to appreciate the risk of a president deciding to simply the the law. After the Civil War, to ensure that states abided by the Constitution, Congress passed 42 U.S. Code 1983, giving individuals the right to sue in federal court when their constitutional rights had been violated under color of state law. At the time, it was inconceivable that there should be a similar need to sue for constitutional violations by the federal government. For one thing, law enforcement was almost exclusively under state control — the FBI was not founded until 1908. Moreover, the federal government was seen, generally, as the perennial good guy and the guarantor of constitutional rights, a position it held right through the civil rights era. As the federal government and federal law enforcement grew, this became more and more untenable. So in 1971, in a case called Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, the Supreme Court created what is known as a 'Bivens action' as an analogue of section 1983, giving individuals the right to sue in court when their Fourth Amendment rights were violated under color of federal law. Since then, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to extend the reach of Bivens, ultimately holding in 2022 that no one could ever bring a legal claim for excessive force — or any constitutional claim — against a federal officer enforcing immigration laws. This is dangerous, especially now. The rule of law is not supposed to run on the honor system. Section 1983 and Bivens actions are not just about monetary damages. They are a way for citizens to hold their government accountable. Officers' understanding that they may someday have to explain their actions is a powerful deterrent to bad behavior. Nobody likes accountability, but it makes all of us, including police officers, better people. The current system of 'what happens in ICE, stays in ICE' is the opposite of that. Unchecked by the courts, ICE's behavior will only get worse over the next three and a half years. Even the most well-meaning bureaucracies are subject to mission creep, so you can expect Noem's troops to expand their activities well beyond detaining immigrants. The Homeland Security officers who invaded Nadler's office were hunting for protesters, and Homan has already threatened state officials and even members of Congress with arrest for 'interfering' with ICE. When it comes to constitutional rights, no man is an island. The threats, performative cruelty and denials of basic due process are not attacks on immigrants. They are attacks on the rule of law itself. You should be just as upset and concerned by the Guatemalan snatched off the street and hustled onto a plane with no notice and no due process as you are by the sobbing staffer handcuffed in Nadler's office. In the eyes of our Constitution, they are all of us. Chris Truax is a charter member of the Society for the Rule of Law and an appellate attorney.
