Trump considered suspending basic constitutional right after losing legal battles
A "secret memo" cautioned Trump against following Stephen Miller's advice.
Ryan Cooper 
President Donald Trump reportedly weighed the drastic option of suspending habeas corpus in an effort to accelerate the deportation of undocumented immigrants following a series of legal defeats in the courtroom.
A Constitutional Conflict
According to a report from The New York Times, Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff for policy and key architect of the administration's immigration strategy, pushed the idea as a means for Trump to bypass judicial oversight. The president showed interest in the concept, prompting Miller to direct the Justice Department to research the historical precedent of Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas rights during the Civil War.
Habeas corpus, a foundational legal principle established in Article I of the Constitution, mandates that the government must provide a legal justification to a judge when holding an individual in custody. This essential protection has been suspended only four times in U.S. history, including the Civil War and following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Secret Memo
Trump ultimately stepped back from the proposal after receiving a confidential memo dated April 29, 2025. Drafted by White House staff secretary and attorney Will Scharf, the document served as a stern warning against circumventing the rule of law.
Scharf argued that the judicial branch would block attempts to ignore due process, writing, "Even where Congress has explicitly suspended habeas corpus rights, the Supreme Court has held that some alternative process must be provided to defendants, with procedural safeguards akin to a habeas corpus action." He further noted that the right is critical because "It prevents, in effect, governmental actors from detaining, imprisoning or executing individuals arbitrarily."
Administration Response
While a White House spokesperson did not confirm or deny the existence of the memo, Abigail Jackson addressed the nature of internal policy discussions. "Members of the administration often have conversations about many different lawful options to implement the president’s agenda — with the president always being the ultimate decider," Jackson stated.
