Kristi Noem Asked to Define Habeas Corpus — And Completely Fumbles It
🚨 Constitutional Illiteracy and the Erosion of Freedom: The Habeas Corpus Disaster
A recent Senate hearing exposed a dangerous truth: the individuals entrusted with protecting American liberty may not even grasp its most fundamental foundations. The exchange between a Senator and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Christy Gnome, was a staggering demonstration of constitutional illiteracy concerning habeas corpus—the bedrock right that separates a free republic from an authoritarian state. This moment was not just an embarrassment; it was a deeply alarming revelation, coming at a time when the administration is openly exploring options to expand executive power and limit judicial review.
Misdefining a Foundational Right
When asked the most basic of constitutional questions, “What is habeas corpus?”, Secretary Gnome offered a definition that was the exact opposite of reality. She incorrectly defined it as a presidential power to “remove people from this country, suspend their rights.”
The Senator was forced to intervene and provide the correct, essential definition: Habeas corpus is the legal principle requiring the government to provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. It is a check on the government, not a tool for it. The right belongs to the people, ensuring the state cannot simply arrest, detain, and “disappear” individuals—including American citizens—indefinitely without cause. This principle is the oldest safeguard in our constitutional tradition, acting as the barrier between the United States and a police state like North Korea or Russia.
The Secretary of Homeland Security’s profound misunderstanding of this right—defining the protection of liberty as the power to suspend liberty—is not merely an oversight. It speaks volumes about the priorities and constitutional awareness within an executive branch that has spent months attempting to find ways to expand its own authority in areas like detention and deportation. When the official in charge of mass deportations and border enforcement does not understand the one constitutional right meant to prevent arbitrary, unchecked detention, the risk to American freedom becomes immediate and tangible.
The Question of Compliance
The Senator quickly moved from definition to commitment, pressing the Secretary on a vital hypothetical: If the President attempts to suspend habeas corpus, and a federal court reverses that order, will she comply with the court or follow the President’s unconstitutional directive?
The Secretary’s response—claiming that the department is “following all federal court orders”—rang hollow and failed to quell the inherent anxiety over this administration’s respect for the rule of law. As the Senator pointed out, this is demonstrably untrue, citing ongoing instances where the administration has ignored court orders, particularly in cases involving the mistaken deportation and detention of US citizens who were denied due process.
The Senator’s persistence on this point is critical. Suspension of habeas corpus is an extraordinary measure, one that has never been successfully undertaken by a president without the approval of Congress—not even by Abraham Lincoln, who sought and received retroactive approval. The administration’s continued silence and constitutional illiteracy on this point signal a worrying willingness to treat fundamental, non-negotiable rights as optional or subject to executive discretion. The commitment to judicial review—the system’s final check on executive overreach—is clearly weak, suggesting that for this administration, procedural rights are secondary to political directives.
Cybersecurity and Shifting Competence
The exchange then pivoted to the complex, modern threats of cybersecurity and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by international criminal organizations. Here, the Secretary’s tone and confidence noticeably shifted.
She discussed how DHS, through CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency), is working extensively to combat sophisticated cybercrime, partner with private industry, and break down silos between intelligence agencies. She acknowledged the grave threat posed by AI in developing advanced malware, convincing phishing messages, and deepfake impersonations, which contributed to Americans, particularly seniors, losing billions of dollars.
Furthermore, she addressed the alarming concerns over foreign-made technology, such as Chinese power inverters, being installed in US infrastructure, raising the threat that foreign governments could disable parts of the nation’s power grid or water systems. She competently stressed the core mission of CISA to help state and local governments harden their systems because the national infrastructure is “extremely vulnerable by our weakest link.”
The stark contrast in the Secretary’s performance is telling: Technocratic language flows freely; constitutional commitments wobble. She demonstrates competence when discussing technology, logistics, and partnerships—the operational mechanics of a large agency. Yet, when confronted with a fundamental pillar of American freedom, she reveals a crippling ignorance. This imbalance shows a dangerous prioritization within the administration: resources and focus are directed toward external threats (cyber, foreign adversaries) while the internal, constitutional safeguards that protect citizens from the government itself are neglected or actively misunderstood. This is the slow, steady erosion of constitutional literacy, which, combined with a desire for unchecked power, poses the most significant risk to the free society her agency is supposed to defend.
