SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"There is no purpose to this other than to hurt Harvard and its students for not fully capitulating to Trump," a professor at the University of Denver wrote.
Observers are sharply condemning a decision by the Trump administration, announced on Thursday, to terminate Harvard University's Student Exchange and Visitor Program certification, meaning that the Ivy League school will no longer be able to enroll foreign students.
According to the announcement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the move also means that foreign students already enrolled at Harvard must transfer elsewhere. The administration alleges the school's leaders have permitted "anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students."
In a statement shared with multiple outlets, a spokesperson for the school called the Trump administration's actions "unlawful."
"This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard's academic and research mission," the spokesperson said.
Harvard has over 6,700 international students, according to data from the school, or 27% international enrollment.
"This intolerable attack on Harvard's independence and academic freedom is plainly government retaliation for Harvard's speech standing up for itself and the rule of law. America must rally to the side of Harvard and its students in court, in Congress and in our communities," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the school, wrote on Thursday.
"I am losing my mind with the lawlessness of this administration," wroteDevin Driscoll, a lawyer, on X on Thursday. "The government is singling out Harvard because they don't like it and it's fighting back."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an immigration lawyer, wrote that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's "action is also likely illegal. She doesn't name a single rule Harvard is alleged to have violated and SEVP certification can't be terminated discretionarily."
Seth Masket, a political science professor at the University of Denver, wrote on Bluesky that "there is no purpose to this other than to hurt Harvard and its students for not fully capitulating to [President Donald] Trump."
Harvard has been repeatedly in the Trump administration's crosshairs. In March, the Trump administration sent letters to 60 universities, including Harvard, letting them know they were under investigation and "warning them of potential enforcement actions" if they do not take adequate steps to protect Jewish students. The administration later said it was reviewing $9 billion in funding for Harvard, claiming it had not done enough to curb antisemitism.
In April, after the administration issued a list of demands to Harvard which the university's president refused to comply with, the administration froze over $2 billion in funding for the school. Harvard has sued the Trump administration over that funding. Trump has also said he will revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status.
Also in April, the Trump administration threatened to prevent the school's ability to enroll international students unless it gave DHS a list of requested information about student visa holders.
"The level of abject stupidity" in President Donald Trump's leadership team "is mindblowing," said one critic of the homeland security secretary.
Fueling further alarm over the Trump administration's lurch toward authoritarianism, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not accurately describe the principle of habeas corpus when asked a question that may appear on a junior high school student's civics exam during a Tuesday morning Senate hearing.
"So Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?" Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) asked during the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing about the fiscal year 2026 budget request.
"Well," Noem responded, "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 that point, Hassan cut her off, saying: "Let me stop you... That's incorrect... 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," Hassan continued. "Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. As a senator from the 'Live Free or Die' state, this matters a lot to me and my constituents, and to all Americans."
"So, Secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides that the government must provide a public reason in order to detain and imprison someone?" the senator asked.
The secretary replied: "Yeah, I support habeas corpus. 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. Let us be clear, though, that this president—"
Hassan interjected again, pointing out that "it has never been done without approval of Congress," and even former President Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval for his suspension during the U.S. Civil War.
HASSAN: What is habeas corpus? NOEM: Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country HASSAN: That's incorrect
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar ( @atrupar.com) May 20, 2025 at 10:16 AM
Lawyers, journalists, and other critics described Noem's remarks as "highly concerning," "embarrassing," and "jaw-dropping."
"This is extraordinary," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "The secretary of Homeland Security doesn't know what the right of habeas corpus is (the ancient right to go to court to challenge government detention) and offers an incoherent definition which suggests she thinks it's a presidential power to deport people?"
Independent journalist and legal analyst Katie Phang declared that "the level of abject stupidity" in President Donald Trump's Cabinet picks "is mindblowing."
Habeas corpus is Latin for "that you have the body." As Cornell University's Legal Information Institute (LII) explains: "In the U.S. system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful."
The U.S. Constitution states that "the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
LII notes that "only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the executive. The executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ." Since the late 1700s, Congress has passed various related laws.
Later in Tuesday's hearing, Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) asked Noem, "Can you confirm to us that you understand that any suspension of habeas corpus requires an act of Congress?"
Noem said: "President Lincoln executed habeas corpus in the past with a retroactive action by Congress. I believe that any president that was able to do that in the past, it should be afforded to our current-day president."
"This president has never said that he's going to do this," Noem continued. "He's never communicated to me or his administration that they're going to consider suspending habeas corpus, but I do think the Constitution allows them the right to consider it."
KIM: Do you know what section of the Constitution the suspension clause of habeas corpus is in? NOEM: I do not. Nope. KIM: Do you know which article is it in? NOEM: I do not, sir.
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar ( @atrupar.com) May 20, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Trump's second administration has framed unauthorized immigration as "the invasion at the southern border."
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told reporters earlier this month that the "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, so it's an option we're actively looking at" as part of the Trump administration's pursuit of mass deportations.
Miller suggested the possible suspension of habeas corpus—or attempt at it—depends on what courts do. The Trump administration has targeted multiple legal immigrants who have been critical of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip for deportation. Some of them have recently been freed from detention by federal judges in response to their legal teams filing habeas corpus petitions.
Republicans narrowly control both chambers of Congress, but it's not clear all GOP members would support a suspension.
"I was a conservative Republican long before Donald Trump became a Republican, joined the Reform Party, became a Democrat, became a Republican again, became an Independent, and finally returned to the Republican Party," David Chung, an editorial fellow at Iowa's The Gazette, wrote Sunday. "But after reading this column, I'm sure some of my Republican friends will accuse me of being a RINO—a Republican in Name Only."
Chung highlighted that after Miller's remarks, during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing last Wednesday, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) asked Noem if the current state of illegal immigration into the United States met the "invasion" requirements for a suspension. The secretary said, "I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe it does."
Recalling the case of Mollie Tibbets, a University of Iowa student murdered by an undocumented man, Chung wrote that "I want to see violent, criminal aliens (legal or illegal) imprisoned, deported, or both, just as much as the next Republican. But I believe that our Constitution and laws are robust enough to accomplish this without trampling on fundamental rights."
"We don't live in a dictatorship or a monarchy," said Rep. Delia Ramirez. "Trump's will is not the guiding doctrine of the nation, and our country is not a playground for his and your twisted authoritarian fantasies."
U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez has led calls for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign for weeks, condemning her prominent role in overseeing the Trump administration's virulently anti-immigrant agenda—but on Wednesday she took a rare in-person opportunity to once again call on the far-right Republican to step down.
"For weeks and weeks we've been waiting for Secretary Noem to come before our committee," said Ramirez (D-Ill.) in a video she posted online ahead of the House Homeland Security Committee hearing. "I'm not going to sit there and just let her lie under oath about all the horrifying things that she's doing... I say enough is enough, and in just a few minutes, I'm going to say that to her face, because it's about damn time that person, that secretary, resigns."
Ramirez began her remarks in the hearing by asking Noem a rapid-fire set of questions, clarifying whether the secretary believes the judicial and legislative branches of government are co-equal branches—facts that have been disregarded by the Trump administration as it has flouted a federal judge's order to stop expelling Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, moved to shutter federal agencies created by Congress, and canceled funding appropriated by Congress.
Despite Noem's claim in the hearing that she and the administration respect bedrock laws meant to maintain checks and balances in the federal government, Ramirez noted in the hearing that Noem has "repeatedly disregarded the law" since being confirmed as homeland security secretary.
As Ramirez said:
You closed offices established in law, including the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, and the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.
You canceled contracts for programs authorized in law, including shelter and services programs, and citizenship and integration grants.
You obstructed and roughed up members of this committee as they conducted congressional oversight.
You redirected funds to terrorize our communities, create taxpayer-funded political propaganda campaigns, and hold sick, disrespectful press conferences in my state, where let me be clear, you are not welcome.
You corruptly used emergency authority to avoid procurement to make [President Donald] Trump's private prison donors richer by directing $45 billion to them for expanded [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detention centers.
You defunded work to address real threats to the homeland, while you pursue the college newspaper editor, labor leaders, and a Harvard scientist who failed to declare frog embryos at the airport.
Ramirez said she found it "laughable" when Noem affirmed that she swore to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution when she took her oath of office.
"You don't behave like someone who takes that oath seriously," said Ramirez. "We don't live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. Trump's will is not the guiding doctrine of the nation, and our country is not a playground for his and your twisted authoritarian fantasies."
"YOU have betrayed the sacred fundamentals of your oath; YOU are not fit to hold the office, and I, again—to your face—demand your resignation and place that request on the record," Ramirez concluded.
The congresswoman also sent a letter to Noem reiterating the demand for her resignation and condemning Department of Homeland Security officials for unlawfully raiding homes and expelling "immigrants, legal residents, and citizens alike," including a number of children.
She also reiterated Sen. Chris Murphy's (D-Conn.) concern, expressed at a hearing last week, that Noem's department is "out of control" and is rapidly "running out of money to execute the horrors we are witnessing."
Noem is also "running out of excuses for [her] despicable actions," Ramirez wrote.
Podcast host Jim Stewartson said that with Ramirez's questioning, she addressed "the Trump regime in its full criminal, anti-democratic, illiberal horror."
"Delia Ramirez finally cuts through the bullshit and lays it all on the table," he said.
At Wednesday's hearing, Noem suggested that under the U.S. Constitution, Trump has the authority to suspend habeas corpus, an idea that's been floated by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.
Rights groups have filed numerous habeas corpus petitions to challenge the detentions of foreign students including Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, and Badar Khan Suri; Öztürk and Suri have been released from detention in recent days.
The Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus, under which people have the right to challenge their detention, only "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
The administration has pushed the idea that the U.S. is facing an "invasion" by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, and has used that claim to expel hundreds of migrants to El Salvador.
"No government has the right to arbitrarily take your freedom away," said Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker after Miller discussed the idea Tuesday. "Preserving habeas corpus is not optional. It's a fundamental concept of justice that people have fought and died for."