logo
Kristi Noem called ‘dangerously dumb' after Senate ‘habeas corpus' blunder; What she said about it

Kristi Noem called ‘dangerously dumb' after Senate ‘habeas corpus' blunder; What she said about it

Time of India22-05-2025

In a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on Tuesday, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary
Kristi Noem
sparked controversy after mischaracterising the constitutional principle of
habeas corpus
. Her comments prompted an immediate correction from Senator
Maggie Hassan
and ignited a flurry of online criticism.
When asked by Senator Hassan, a Democrat from
New Hampshire
, to define habeas corpus, Noem responded, 'Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, to suspend their right to...' before being cut off.
Senator Hassan firmly replied, 'Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including
American citizens
, and hold them indefinitely for no reason. It is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.'
Noem then rephrased her answer, stating, 'I support habeas corpus.' But she added, 'I also recognise that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not.'
This exchange came amid rising concerns that the Trump administration may attempt to suspend the centuries-old legal safeguard as part of its aggressive immigration enforcement strategy.
Live Events
Suspension talk: Trump aide fuels debate
The discussion follows earlier remarks by
Stephen Miller
, White House deputy chief of staff, who on 9 May told reporters the administration was 'actively looking at' suspending habeas corpus. He said, 'The Constitution is clear… the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended in time of invasion… So that's an option we're actively looking at.'
Miller further suggested that courts might not even have jurisdiction, stating, 'Congress passed a body of law known as the
Immigration Nationality Act
which stripped Article III courts… of jurisdiction over immigration cases.'
The Trump administration has argued that the U.S. is facing an 'invasion' of illegal migrants, invoking language typically associated with war or national emergency. The aim is to expedite deportations without lengthy legal proceedings. However, this framing has been widely challenged in courts and the press.
What is 'Habeas corpus'?
Habeas corpus—Latin for 'you have the body'—is a legal doctrine that dates back to English common law and was codified in the U.S. Constitution to ensure that the government must justify detaining any person before a neutral judge. The Constitution only allows its suspension 'when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.'
Historically, suspension has occurred just four times. President Abraham Lincoln first suspended it during the Civil War to detain Confederate sympathisers, a move initially rebuked by the Supreme Court's then-Chief Justice Roger Taney. Congress later granted Lincoln retroactive approval. It was suspended again under President Ulysses S. Grant to combat Ku Klux Klan violence, in the Philippines in 1905, and in Hawaii after the Pearl Harbour attack in 1941.
Legal scholars, including now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett, have noted that although the Constitution does not specify which branch may suspend habeas corpus, most agree that only Congress holds that power.
Following the gaffe, Kristi Noem has come under intense scrutiny on social media after a video of her misdefining the legal principle of habeas corpus during a
Senate hearing
went viral.
The moment was posted on X (formerly Twitter) by political commentator Brian Krassenstein. 'We are living in the dumbest of times,' Krassenstein wrote, summing up what many users echoed in the comments.
— krassenstein (@krassenstein)
The backlash was swift and biting.
One user responded, 'I was laughing so hard! That's why she plays dress-up, because she can't do anything else.' Another added, 'Dangerously dumb.' Comments ranged from blunt jabs—'She's as dumb as a bag of rocks'—to more pointed speculation: 'She's playing dumb. Has to be.' Another said plainly, 'The head of the department is freaking CLUELESS! My God!'
The social media storm erupted after Noem told Senator Maggie Hassan during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing that habeas corpus was 'a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.' Hassan, a Democrat and former attorney, immediately corrected her: 'Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people.'
Judiciary pushback likely
John Blume, professor at Cornell Law School, said Noem's remarks reflect either 'a fundamental misunderstanding' or deliberate misinformation. 'She was giving an answer she knew was wrong to appease the president,' he told reporters.
Blume also cast doubt on the administration's ability to suspend habeas corpus, even under claims of invasion. 'That position would be very unlikely to fly with the U.S. Supreme Court,' he added.
This is not the administration's first brush with sweeping legal authority. Trump previously cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants alleged to be gang members. Federal courts across states including New York, Texas, and Pennsylvania blocked the move, citing insufficient evidence of a true national threat.
Unlike previous administrations, even during times of crisis, President Trump's team appears more willing to stretch executive power. After the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush chose not to suspend habeas corpus but instead detained terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court later ruled in 2008 that detainees had the right to challenge their detention under habeas corpus.
Senator Hassan pressed Noem further on whether she would follow a hypothetical court ruling overturning a presidential suspension of habeas corpus. Noem responded, 'I'm following all court orders… as is the president.' To which Hassan responded bluntly, 'That is obviously not true for anybody who reads the news.'
A divided government, a divided opinion
Any attempt to suspend habeas corpus now would face steep hurdles. With only narrow Republican majorities in Congress, gaining legislative support would be difficult. Courts, too, remain a bulwark against executive overreach, as seen in repeated rulings that have blocked Trump-era immigration measures.
Still, the administration's interest in circumventing traditional legal pathways to speed up deportations signals a concerning shift.
At its core, the clash over habeas corpus is more than a political spat—it's a test of the balance between national security and civil liberties. And for many, the answer should never be ambiguous.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

100 Democrats urge Trump officials to restore deportation relief for Afghans in the US
100 Democrats urge Trump officials to restore deportation relief for Afghans in the US

Indian Express

time25 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

100 Democrats urge Trump officials to restore deportation relief for Afghans in the US

A group of 100 Democratic lawmakers has urged the Trump administration to reverse its decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghans in the US, warning it would endanger thousands of lives by sending them back to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. In a letter addressed to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the lawmakers wrote, 'The grave conditions that forced Afghan nationals to flee and seek refuge in the US following the return of the Taliban to power remain.' They added, 'Forcing Afghan nationals in the US to return to Afghanistan would be reckless and inhumane, and would threaten the safety and well-being of thousands of individuals and families, especially women and girls.' Led by Senator Chris Van Hollen, Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Representative Glenn Ivey, the lawmakers urged the administration to reinstate TPS protections. TPS provides temporary deportation relief and work authorisation for immigrants from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions that prevent safe return. DHS announced in May that it would terminate TPS for Afghans by July 14, arguing that conditions had improved and continued presence was against national interests. Roughly 11,700 Afghans are currently enrolled in TPS, though about 3,600 have secured green cards. The Trump administration has already ended TPS protections for some 350,000 Venezuelans and moved to end the program for thousands of Cameroonians, raising broader concerns about the future of TPS protections for vulnerable immigrant groups.

Trump's New Visa Vetting Process Sends Indian Students In Frenzy To Delete Social Media Posts
Trump's New Visa Vetting Process Sends Indian Students In Frenzy To Delete Social Media Posts

News18

time32 minutes ago

  • News18

Trump's New Visa Vetting Process Sends Indian Students In Frenzy To Delete Social Media Posts

Last Updated: The Trump administration announced a new process that includes social media profile screening of visa applicants, causing Indian students to delete posts and social media accounts. Indian students are rushing frantically to delete social media posts in a desperate bid to escape the Trump administration's crackdown on international students, after it announced a new process that includes social media profile screening. An internal cable from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the social media posts of visa applicants will be scrutinised before allowing them entry. The move came amid a broader crackdown on international students after pro-Palestinian protests engulfed US university campuses last year. This move has sparked alarm among Indian students applying for US colleges and sent them into a frenzy to delete their social media posts that the Trump administration may see and deem sufficient enough to deny them entry into the country. How Social Media Vetting Has Affected Students? Amid Trump's strict social media checks for visa applicants, a growing number of Indian students are not only deleting their posts but removing their accounts altogether to avoid circumstances that derail their plans to study in the US. A student named Manya (name changed), who was selected for a master's programme at an Ivy League university, has deleted her Instagram and LinkedIn profiles after her visa counsellor warned her that her political posts may pose a threat to her application, according to a report by India Today. Another student, Diljeet (name changed), turned his social media handles to private settings. They are among the students who are concerned that their political views, humour or activism may be misinterpreted by US authorities, which would eventually result in the rejection of their visas. Even the smallest hint of political activism may lead to the rejection of a US visa, says Mamta Shekhawat, founder of 'Immigration authorities require student visa applicants to provide their social media handles for the previous five years, allowing them to make character evaluations and determine whether and how the applicant's professional and academic background matches the visa objectives," she said. Will This Protect Students? However, visa counsellors have warned that such a drastic step, such as the sudden deletion of content or social media handles, could raise suspicion that can lead to suspicion among US vetting authorities. They have also warned that even liking or sharing content could be considered illegal. Shekhawat asserted the importance of responsible online behaviour, saying students need to be careful about what they delete, as this pattern might become evident during the vetting process. Pro-Palestinian views or perceived anti-American sentiments could invite extra scrutiny on the applicants. A PhD student at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) began erasing his social media presence, after a US university paused his post-doctoral appointment, as per reports. However, he remains unsure about whether it would be enough to get the visa. What Is Social Media Vetting? The US State Department's directive indicates a plan to issue updated guidance on social media vetting for all student and exchange visitor (F, M, J) visa applicants to scrutinize applicants' online activity and thereby assess their eligibility for entry. 'Effective immediately, in preparation for an expansion of required social media screening and vetting, consular sections should not add any additional student or exchange visitor (F, M, and J) visa appointment capacity until further guidance is issued … in the coming days," a Tuesday diplomatic cable reportedly said, as reported by Politico. Officials will review social media profiles for content that could deem them inadmissible, and posts – like the ones on terrorism and antisemitism – could trigger intensified scrutiny. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Indian students United states us visa rules Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 04, 2025, 23:03 IST News world Trump's New Visa Vetting Process Sends Indian Students In Frenzy To Delete Social Media Posts

Putin Said Very Strongly He'll "Have To Respond": Trump On Ukraine Drone Strike
Putin Said Very Strongly He'll "Have To Respond": Trump On Ukraine Drone Strike

NDTV

time33 minutes ago

  • NDTV

Putin Said Very Strongly He'll "Have To Respond": Trump On Ukraine Drone Strike

Washington DC / Moscow: US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke for more than an hour during which the Russian leader made it very clear that Moscow will "have to respond" to the daring drone attack launched by Ukraine deep inside Russia. "Putin said very strongly that he will have to respond to Ukraine's drone attack," President Trump said immediately after getting off the phone with his Russian counterpart, however, he deleted the post minutes after sharing it - a screengrab of which may be seen below: On Sunday, Ukraine carried out what has been described by war analysts as the most audacious drone attack in military history, targeting and destroying Russian Air Force jets parked at strategic air bases deep inside Russian territory. The attack left dozens of Russia's strategic bombers, transport aircraft, and airborne warning aircraft decimated. Moscow was caught off-guard presumably over the fact that these airbases are located so far inside Russia that the sheer distance was enough to keep aircraft safe from a Ukrainian attack. The attack has given a huge boost to Kyiv's morale, while creating a big dent on the morale of Moscow. Though peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow went as planned a day after the stunning attack, the conflict has intensified in the last 48 hours. Meanwhile, President Trump spoke with President Putin today. "I just finished speaking, by telephone, with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia. The call lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes. We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides," President Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social. He said that today discussion was "good, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace." "President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields," President Trump revealed. The Russian President's warning comes two days after Ukraine's Zelensky claimed that as many as 41 Russian military jets were destroyed in the Trojan-horse styled attack, in which drones were sent secretly concealed in container trucks before being deployed remotely. The air bases targeted by Ukraine were the Belaya Air Base in Siberia's Irkutsk, the Olenya Air Base in the Arctic region's Murmansk, the Ivanovo Severny Air Base in Ivanovo, the Dyagilevo Air Base in Ryazan, and Ukrainka Air Base in Russia's Far East. While the nearest of these air bases is located more than 500 km from the Ukraine border, the farthest one is located as much as 8,000 km from the border. These attacks are being called the most audacious in military history due to its scale and reach. Though western allies have supplied Ukraine with missiles too - the US-made ATACMS and the British-French-made Storm Shadow - neither has the range to hit these air bases located deep inside Russian territory. During the call on Tuesday, Presidents Trump and Putin "also discussed Iran, and the fact that time is running out on Iran's decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly! I stated to President Putin that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and, on this, I believe that we were in agreement," President Trump said. "President Putin suggested that he will participate in the discussions with Iran and that he could, perhaps, be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion. It is my opinion that Iran has been slowwalking their decision on this very important matter, and we will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time," the US President stated.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store