Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stumbled spectacularly during a congressional hearing, mangling the definition of Habeas Corpus like a rookie at a constitutional law pop quiz, as the Daily Mail reports.
Social media erupted, with critics pouncing on her error as evidence of a shaky grasp on basic rights. The gaffe, tied to heated immigration debates, underscores the Trump administration’s knack for stepping on legal rakes.
On Tuesday, Noem testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where she faced Sen. Maggie Hassan’s pointed question about habeas corpus. The incident, alongside backlash over deportations to South Sudan, fueled a firestorm over constitutional protections. Progressives gleefully seized the moment to paint Noem as out of her depth.
Hassan asked, “Secretary Noem, what is Habeas Corpus?” Noem confidently claimed it allows presidents to deport people and suspend their rights -- a definition as accurate as calling a hammer a screwdriver. Hassan swiftly corrected her, but Noem doubled down, insisting presidents hold that power.
The concept of habeas corpus, a cornerstone of American liberty, ensures that no one, citizen or not, can be detained without legal justification. Noem’s blunder suggested a dangerous conflation with deportation authority, alarming those who value checks on government power. Her error wasn’t just academic; it waved a red flag over the administration’s immigration playbook.
Sen. Hassan emphasized that habeas corpus prevents the government from holding people indefinitely without a public reason, a principle separating free nations from tyrannies. “It’s the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea,” she said. Her jab landed hard, exposing Noem’s misstep as more than a verbal fumble.
Noem, undeterred, maintained that presidents can suspend habeas corpus, citing historical precedents. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin backed her, noting, “Presidents have suspended habeas corpus in practice -- Lincoln, Grant, FDR, and Bush -- all during moments of crisis.” But McLaughlin admitted Congress technically holds that authority, revealing Noem’s overreach.
Social media critics didn’t hold back, with one sniping, “Noem just confused habeas corpus with deportation powers.” Another quipped that her ignorance signaled “the dumbest of times.” Their sanctimonious outrage, while predictable, conveniently ignored the complexity of immigration enforcement in a crisis.
The hearing’s backdrop was the Trump administration’s deportation of migrants to South Sudan, a move Democrats decried as reckless. The group included serious criminals—five murderers and a pedophile -- yet only one was a South Sudanese citizen. Critics argued the administration flouted a court order restricting such third-country removals.
U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy ruled on Tuesday, that officials must retain custody of the migrants pending review of their deportations’ legality. Attorneys for the migrants, hailing from countries like Burma and Vietnam, claimed the administration ignored judicial limits. The ruling threw a wrench into the deportation machinery, delighting open-borders advocates.
Democrats hammered Noem and “border czar” Tom Homan, accusing them of trampling constitutional rights. Their lectures about habeas corpus rang hollow, given their silence on criminal migrants exploiting legal loopholes. Still, Noem’s fumble gave them ample ammunition to grandstand. Hassan pressed Noem on whether she supported habeas corpus’s core protection. “I support habeas corpus,” Noem replied, but added that presidents can decide when to suspend it. Her stance, while rooted in historical examples, ignored the constitutional reality that Congress, not the executive, holds the reins.
McLaughlin’s defense of Noem leaned on presidents like Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus but later sought congressional approval. The precedent exists, but Noem’s sloppy articulation muddied the waters. She handed critics a stick to beat the administration with, and they swung hard.
The South Sudan deportations, involving criminals from Cuba, Mexico, and beyond, highlighted the administration’s tough-on-crime stance. Yet Noem’s habeas corpus flub shifted focus from policy to her apparent ignorance. It’s a classic case of the left’s outrage machine turning a molehill into a mountain.
Social media’s pile-on framed Noem as a constitutional lightweight, with one critic sneering she “can’t define basic constitutional rights.” Their smugness reeks of elitism, but Noem’s error was a self-inflicted wound. She needs to brush up on Civics 101 before her next Capitol Hill showdown.
The incident underscores a broader truth: the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, while necessary, keeps tripping over legal and rhetorical landmines. Noem’s misstep, though embarrassing, doesn’t negate the urgency of securing borders against criminal elements. But next time, she’d better bring a dictionary -- or at least a cheat sheet.
