Trump’s Border Czar Warns He Doesn’t Care About Due Process

Border czar Tom Homan gave up the game on Donald Trump’s revenge scheme to rob noncitizens of their legal rights under the Alien Enemies Act.

During a Sunday interview on ABC News’s This Week with Jonathan Karl, a sedated-sounding Homan struggled to answer questions about the rushed deportations of more than 100 alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang the Trump administration has declared an invading force.

Karl asked how authorities had been able to determine whether the individuals were in the gang; Homan readily admitted that many of the deportees did not have any criminal record.

“A lot of gang members don’t have criminal histories, just like a lot of terrorists in this world, they’re not in any terrorist databases, right?” he said.

Homan said that authorities had relied on social media, surveillance, sworn statements from gang members, and wire taps to determine supposed gang affiliation.

Karl explained that lawyers for several of the deportees claimed that authorities had wrongly labeled their clients as gang members.

“Do they get a chance to prove that before you take them out of the country and put them into a notorious prison in a country that they’re not even from? I mean, do they have any due process at all?” he asked Homan.

“Due process? What was Laken Riley’s due process? Where were all these young women that were killed and raped by members of TdA, where was their due process?” Homan said.

“Well the people who did that should be prosecuted—” Karl continued, but Homan cut him off.

The border czar insisted that due process could be suspended because “every Ven-ze-ulan” on the flight was determined to be a member of the gang, and therefore a terrorist.

Shortly after the AEA was invoked last week, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary injunction on deportations under the wartime law after lawyers from the ACLU challenged the designation of five individuals under the act. Still, the Trump administration proceeded with the swift removal of more than 100 Venezuelan nationals, launching a series of hearings last week reviewing the use of the law to suspend due process.

While the Trump administration has since said it would comply with court orders, the president and other members of his administration have begun relentlessly attacking Boasberg, claiming that he was a “lunatic” who was biased against Trump.

On This Week, Homan was asked to explain his own wild attack on the judiciary, when he said, “I don’t care what judges think.”

“I don’t care what that judge thinks as far as this case,” Homan explained Sunday. “We’re going to continue to arrest public safety threats and national security threats. We’re going to continue to deport them from the United States.”

On Monday, Boasberg ruled that the ACLU was “likely to succeed” in arguing that individuals the government had claimed were members of the Tren de Aragua gang were “entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all,” denying the government’s request to lift his restraining order on AEA deportations.

Despite Homan’s admission that the deportees lacked actual criminal records, Attorney General Pam Bondi falsely claimed Sunday that the Trump administration was within its rights because the deportees had committed “the most violent crimes that you can imagine.”

Donald Trump is appointing his personal lawyer Alina Habba as the interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

The president announced the move in a Truth Social post Monday morning, saying that Habba “will lead with the same diligence and conviction that has defined her career.”

The move will put Habba in charge of all federal cases in New Jersey on what is supposed to be a temporary basis, bypassing Senate confirmation. The state is the home of Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, and is also the jurisdiction for the government’s case against pro-Palestine activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, whom Trump is trying to deport after rescinding his green card.

Habba has a reputation as one of Trump’s most ardent defenders, backing him up when he spreads conspiracy theories and, during his hush-money trial last year, offering defenses for his unusual behavior, from falling asleep in court to his penchant for holding press clippings of himself.

More recently, earlier this month Habba responded to the Trump administration’s firing of thousands of military veterans by saying that “perhaps they’re not fit to have a job at this moment.” Her seemingly unconditional support for the president also extends into her legal acumen, which is highly flawed at best.

Throughout Trump’s New York hush-money trial, Habba misspoke in court, hurting Trump’s case and even seeming to misunderstand the term “due process.” While representing the president in a defamation lawsuit from writer E. Jean Carroll, Habba’s opening statement seemed to immediately undermine Trump’s case, and during the case, she was reprimanded by the judge on multiple occasions.

Making Habba the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey seems like a recipe for disaster, considering she is supposed to uphold and enforce the law in accordance with the Constitution. But Trump’s decision to appoint Habba is almost certainly by design: He wants a loyalist to push prosecutions that he wants, regardless of legal justifications, and protect his interests in the state.

Education Department staffers warn that Trump’s mass firings will do irreparable harm to the student loan system. At least 300 people were fired last week from Federal Student Aid, the office within the department that manages student loans. 

This was shortly followed by President Trump’s Thursday executive order to eliminate the Education Department entirely. 

“They got rid of all of the quality checkers. It’s only a matter of time [before] they cause the whole system to fail,” a high ranking department staffer told The Guardian anonymously. “If this was a bank, and they fired all the quality assurance team, their regulator would have shut them down.… It’s the opposite of safety.”

These anonymous workers believe the purge will create opportunities for fraud and abuse and  lead to more bureaucratic issues, like long wait times for loan service providers. “As an organization, we were already doing a lot more work than our staffing provides. We would need 10 times more people for a bank of our size,” the senior staffer said.

“What Linda McMahon has done is given 5,000 institutions the green light to cause massive amounts of taxpayer fraud and abuse of federal financial aid dollars financed by taxpayers without any check and balances in place,” one fired employee said. “The gatekeepers are gone.”

This is a massive blow to an already hobbled system. Many of those fired were working full time to make sure that American citizens could pay for college without drowning in millions of dollars in debt.

The MAGA movement is not falling in line behind Elon Musk.

Republican strategists and voters with an affinity for Donald Trump are not keen to see the world’s richest man make cuts to agencies and programs that they rely on, sparking concerns that Musk’s entrenchment in Trump’s agenda could cost conservatives in midterm elections.

GOP strategist Alex Conant told The Hill Friday that there’ll be “political costs” to empowering Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency if Republican voters don’t hear about the “benefits” of DOGE—and soon.

“What Republicans should be concerned about is Musk’s effectiveness,” Conant said. “If DOGE actually breaks things that people care about and rely on, there’s gonna be political costs to that.”

Republican strategist Doug Heye predicted that Musk’s involvement in the White House would result in “real job losses” in the coming weeks and months.

“And where that has an impact, especially in specific communities … that makes their life harder for the reliable voter, typically, for Trump,” Heye told The Hill. “That kind of slow burn, I think, could have an impact.”

Even some of Trump’s biggest fans have had their immense loyalty challenged by Trump’s new billionaire adviser.

Trump attended an NCAA men’s Division I wrestling championship in Philadelphia on Saturday, alongside White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, and Musk. But reactions to the Tesla CEO were less than warm, reported The New York Times.

Katy Travis, a 48-year-old wrestling mom from Montana, told the publication that Musk’s constant presence at Trump’s side “looks ridiculous,” and that his enormous influence over Trump made the president “look weak.”

“It makes him look like he’s kissing ass to get money,” Travis told the Times.

Others were worried about their investments as Musk’s aggressive slashes to federal agencies rattled the stock market.

“I know there’s a lot of concern about what he’s doing, as far as the DOGE stuff and all,” Jarrod Scandle, a 44-year-old retired Pennsylvanian police officer who specified that he’s more of a “Chevy or Ford” guy, told the Times. “I understand everybody’s concern. I’m concerned. I own stock, and you know, it’s red every day, and I’m worried.

Donald Trump has escalated his attacks on judges ruling against his administration, suggesting that they could be charged with sedition and treason.

The president reposted an article from Gateway Pundit, a right-wing website known for trafficking in hoaxes and conspiracy theories, on his Truth Social account Sunday. The article attempts to make a legal argument that federal judges who rule against Trump’s policies and executive orders can be prosecuted for sedition and treason.

The article makes wild claims about federal law concerning treason and seditious conspiracy, claiming that judges collaborating “with foreign or domestic entities to undermine national security-related executive decisions” would justify treason charges, while judges “intentionally obstruct[ing] executive functions and conspir[ing] to weaken presidential authority” could constitute seditious conspiracy.

Going even further, the article’s writer, Yaacov Apelbaum, argued that if judges’ rulings are “severely undermining the federal government’s operations,” that could constitute “aiding enemies or direct rebellion” under Article 3 of the Constitution.

If the president is giving serious weight to these legal theories, that goes far beyond his previous threats to impeach judges he doesn’t like, which has been echoed by Elon Musk and other right-wing figures and drawn a mealy-mouthed condemnation from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

It also suggests that Trump will stop at nothing to continue issuing legally questionable executive orders, which have decimated federal agencies created and regulated by Congress, and rushed through mass deportations and immigration penalties that very likely violate federal law and the Constitution. If Trump finds a way to sideline, impeach, or charge federal judges when they rule against him, he will have decimated the constitutional separation of powers and cemented himself as a dictator.

The judicial system has handed DOGE another loss.

Judge Deborah Boardman on Monday ruled that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has no legal right to the personal information of American citizens held at the Department of Education, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Treasury Department.

“No matter how important or urgent the President’s DOGE agenda may be, federal agencies must execute it in accordance with the law. That likely did not happen in this case,” Boardman wrote. She then filed a preliminary injunction blocking the aforementioned departments from sharing sensitive information with DOGE.

Boardman also referred to the Privacy Act of 1974 after noting that DOGE had already gotten its hands on systems containing Americans’ banking information, Social Security numbers, and marital and citizenship status.

“Congress’s concern back then was that ‘every detail of our personal lives can be assembled instantly for use by a single bureaucrat or institution’ and that ‘a bureaucrat in Washington or Chicago or Los Angeles can use his organization’s computer facilities to assemble a complete dossier of all known information about an individual,’ Boardman wrote. Those concerns are just as salient today.”

This story has been updated.

Activist groups are holding “empty chair” town halls in Republican districts to show how abandoned some red-state voters are feeling four months into Trump’s second term.

A dozen town halls over the last week have featured angry voters yelling at a picture of their no-show Republican lawmaker. Hundreds railed against Andy Harris in Maryland on Saturday, where Representative Jamie Raskin stepped up in his absence.

“What’s interesting is that the people who are showing up are not paid protesters, but the people who are not showing up are paid politicians,” Raskin said while organizers showed a giant “MISSING” milk carton ad with Harris’s face on it. “If your name is on the ballot, your face should not be on the milk carton.”

Senator Thom Tillis was attacked in South Carolina on Friday.

“We need [Senator Tillis] to know that a lot of bills that are going through that he’s voting for us, the people, a lot of us are against,” said town hall attendee Rebekah Burks. “And we want him to know that we are unhappy with that. He works for us. We’re his constituents. He works for us. We have the right to talk to him, and he should answer our questions.”

“Will you stand up for your people and Congress by taking food out of the mouths of hungry constituents in your district?” a constituent said to the empty chair New York Representative Elise Stefanik should have been in. “She promoted higher education and Pell grants, and today she’s calling for the destruction of the Department of Education, which administers those grants,” said another.

In Ohio, a whopping 1,400 people showed up to rebuke Senators Bernie Moreno and Jon Husted on Saturday.

“As an ex–federal employee and a union member, I’m mad as hell,” attendee Arnold Scott said. “How about these billionaires pay their taxes? When they cut employees at the various agencies, actually what they’re doing is cutting the services that the taxpayers are paying for. When they cut the VA, they’re cutting veterans. You stand there and say you support the veterans, but then you cut the veterans. When you cut them, that translates into it taking longer for them to receive the services that they’re entitled to.”

More of the same happened in San Diego, where voters’ main concern was “what Elon Musk and DOGE is doing as far as having an unelected person just dismantling the government.”

These town halls, organized by progressive group Indivisible, come as Trump and Musk’s current and proposed purges to Social Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Food and Drug Administration, and much more have started to hit their own constituents where it hurts—with no resistance from their representatives.

A federal judge refused Monday to lift a pause on Donald Trump’s deportations of alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

In a 37-page filing, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the ACLU was “likely to succeed” in arguing that individuals the government had claimed were members of the Tren de Aragua gang were “entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all.”

“As the government itself concedes, the awesome power granted by the Act may be brought to bear only on those who are, in fact, ‘alien enemies,’” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg also wrote that deportees under the AEA would suffer irreparable harm due to the horrible conditions of Salvadoran prisons, where prisoners are reportedly abused, humiliated, and left to rot without their families knowing anything about their whereabouts or well-being. Trump has agreed to pay Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele $6 million to hold deportees, including the 261 people whom Trump deported last week.

“There may well also be independent restrictions on the Government’s ability to deport class members—at least to Salvadoran prisons—even if they do fall within the Proclamation’s terms,” Boasberg wrote. The judge cited the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, which states that “it shall be the policy of the United States not to expel … any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”

The plaintiffs, who were loaded onto airplanes and denied their due process, were not given the opportunity to claim legal protection from potential torture afforded to them by U.S. law. When detainees asked where they were being deported, immigration officers simply laughed and said they didn’t know, according to the filing.

Ultimately, Boasberg denied the government’s motion to vacate his temporary restraining order on AEA deportations.

Earlier this month, after Trump invoked the AEA to deport alleged members of Tren de Aragua—now labeled an invading force—without due process, lawyers from the ACLU sought emergency relief for five individuals who claimed they had been wrongly identified as gang members.

In response, Boasberg had ordered the Trump administration to temporarily pause deportations under the AEA, but the government continued with the removal of more than 100 Venezuelan nationals—in defiance of the judge’s order.

The Trump administration has refused to reveal how immigration authorities were able to identify the individuals as gang members. One attorney alleged that her client had been wrongly labeled a member of the gang merely because of a tattoo that looked suspicious to immigration officials.

During a hearing Friday, Boasberg said that Trump’s “expanded” application of the eighteenth-century law was a “long way from the heartland” of the rule.

This story has been updated.

President Donald Trump threw a temper tantrum Sunday, demanding that an unflattering portrait of him be taken out of the Colorado state Capitol.

“Nobody likes a bad picture or painting of themselves, but the one in Colorado, in the State Capitol, put up by the Governor, along with all other Presidents, was purposefully distorted to a level that even I, perhaps, have never seen before,” Trump wrote in an outraged post on Truth Social.

“The artist also did President Obama, and he looks wonderful, but the one on me is truly the worst. She must have lost her talent as she got older,” he wrote.

In his post, Trump included a photograph of the portrait, showing a blanched president with furrowed brows, rounded cheeks, and a faded jaw line—not totally dissimilar from the president’s own face. Certainly not “purposefully distorted.”

Ever insistent on his mandate, Trump claimed that he was really engaging in childish whining on behalf of the people. “In any event, I would much prefer not having a picture than having this one, but many people from Colorado have called and written to complain. In fact, they are actually angry about it!

“I am speaking on their behalf to the Radical Left Governor, Jared Polis, who is extremely weak on Crime, in particular with respect to Tren de Aragua, which practically took over Aurora (Don’t worry, we saved it!), to take it down,” Trump wrote. “Jared should be ashamed of himself!”

Trump’s shot at Democratic Governor Jared Polis also included a reference to Aurora, Colorado. During his campaign for the White House, Trump had falsely claimed Aurora had been “taken over” by an armed Venezuelan gang. He now claims to have saved the city, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to crack down on undocumented immigrants and suspected gang members.

Earlier this month, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime law from the eighteenth century, to declare Tren de Aragua an invading force, for the purpose of deporting its members without due process. The president’s use of the law is currently being reviewed in federal court after two legal advocacy groups alleged that the government had wrongly identified their clients as gang members. A federal judge issued a temporary pause on the deportations, but the government proceeded to send more than 100 Venezuelan nationals to a prison in El Salvador.

A spokesperson for Polis commended the president’s commitment to complaining about something so minute, telling The Hill, “Gov. Polis was surprised to learn the President of the United States is an aficionado of our Colorado State Capitol and its artwork. The State Capitol was completed in 1901, and features Rose Onyx and White Yule Marble mined in Colorado, and includes portraits of former Presidents and former governors. We appreciate the President and everyone’s interest in our capitol building and are always looking for any opportunity to improve our visitor experience.”

The Supreme Court will not take on a case aimed at rescinding press protections via libel lawsuits.

The nation’s highest judiciary rejected an effort Monday by Republican megadonor Steve Wynn, declining to hear his argument for overturning New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark 1964 decision that raised the standards required for a plaintiff to win a defamation lawsuit against a media organization.

In that case, the bench unanimously found that it wasn’t enough for reported information to be found false for a plaintiff to win a suit. Instead, Justice William Brennan Jr. argued that in order to win a defamation case, public figures must prove that journalists published details with “actual malice”—as in, a gross recklessness or disregard for the truth.

In a petition filed in February, Wynn claimed that the 61-year-old precedent was “unfit for the modern era.”

“Instead, everyone in the world has the ability to publish any statement with a few keystrokes. And in this age of clickbait journalism, even those members of the legacy media have resorted to libelous headlines and false reports to generate views. This Court need not further this golden era of lies,” the attorney for the former Republican National Committee finance chair wrote.

The high court has thrown out previous attempts to upend the libel standard. In 2022, the Supreme Court refused to hear a similar challenge to the “actual malice” definition when Coral Ridge Ministries Media sued the Southern Poverty Law Center for listing them as an “anti-LGBTQ hate group.” But not everyone on the court was in agreement—in a controversial dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas left the door open for possible future attempts to undo the decision, writing that the original ruling was “allowing media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”

Ultimately, the “actual malice” standard for public figures and officials is intended to deter lawsuits from people who don’t need to rely on the legal system in order to correct or address negative coverage. Instead, people in power can call for news conferences or (in the case of elected officials) draft new laws that counteract the narrative of their unwanted media coverage. Times v. Sullivan also protects press organizations from people with enormous wealth who could potentially leverage their financial resources in order to silence criticism of their behavior.

Defamation standards for private figures are different: Average, everyday people suing media organizations for incorrect coverage do not have to prove “actual malice,” and instead only need to show a court that the information was incorrect and damaged their reputation.

Wynn’s case against press protections comes with its own baggage. In 2018, the casino mogul sued the Associated Press for defamation after the newswire reported that two women had accused him of sexual assault in the 1970s.

Wynn resigned as chairman and CEO of Wynn Resorts that year, just two weeks after The Wall Street Journal reported that the billionaire had paid out a $7.5 million settlement to a hired manicurist he allegedly raped.

“After she gave Mr. Wynn a manicure, she said, he pressured her to take her clothes off and told her to lie on the massage table he kept in his office suite, according to people she gave the account to,” the Journal reported at the time. “The manicurist said she told Mr. Wynn she didn’t want to have sex and was married, but he persisted in his demands that she do so, and ultimately she did disrobe and they had sex, the people remember her saying.”

The Nevada state Supreme Court ruled against Wynn in November, with Justice Ron Parraguirre writing that “one of the most recognized figures in Nevada” needed to show “clear and convincing evidence to reasonably infer that the publication was made with actual malice.”

This story has been updated.