Kristi Noem's "abject stupidity" is on gaudy display as she flunks a "junior high civics test" by scrambling to find answers before Congress on habeas corpus

Kristi Noem: Getting schooled on habeas corpus (AP)

 

One might expect that a cabinet secretary in a U.S. presidential administration could pass a junior-high civics test. But an article at Alternet suggests that is not the case with current Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Jessica Corbett expounds on that idea under the headline "'Abject stupidity': Critics pounce as Kristi Noem fails junior high civics test":

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."

Even with Hassan's help, Noem still did not seem to get the idea. In other words, the "teacher" was helping her, but Noem remained lost on a junior-high civics exam. It's like she was failing an open-book test. Corbett reports:

"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.

At this point, Hassan must have been thinking, "How did this "student" ever get into my classroom, and how am I going to get rid of her?" Many others seemed o be thinking, "How low is the bar for intellectual capacity in the Trump administration? Answer: That bar is laying on the ground. All you have to do is step over it. Corbett writes:

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."

That is an admission that Noem is not alone in her ignorance on the Trump cabinet. She has company in the form of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and others. (I'm not sure it's accurate to say Bondi is ignorant, but she certainly is ethically challenged, as we will show in a series of upcoming posts. As for Patel, he probably isn't ignorant either, but we've seen signs that he isn't serious about his job, preferring to boogie  down at nightclubs and jet around to hockey games, where he can be seen schmoozing with Hall of Famer Wayne Gretzky. Corbett writes:

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.

By this time, Noem probably wanted to exit the building and head out into a field, where she could find a dog or goat to fatally shoot. But pesky U.S. senators would not leave her alone:

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."

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 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."

In implementing Trump's deportation scheme, Homeland Security deals with habeas corpus; but to Kristi Noem, the term derives from a foreign language

Kristi Noem: A deer in headlights (USA Today)

As secretary of homeland security, Kristi Noem is a central figure in Donald Trump's scheme to unlawfully deport alleged illegal immigrants to far-flung facilities around the globe, usually with no sign that due process of law has played any role in the proceedings. One might think that Noem would be familiar with some of the legal concepts associated with such a massive and complex effort. But based on Noem's testimony before a Congressional committee this week, her knowledge of concepts such as habeas corpus, which comes straight from the U.S. Constitution (most prominently in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2) is as thin as dental floss -- and less weighty

How embarrassing was Noem's testimony for the Trump administration -- and the country. Some observers have referred to it as a "face palm." Details on Noem's almost comical performance come from Inae Oh, writing at Mother Jones under the headline "Does Kristi Noem Even Know What Habeas Corpus Is? The Homeland Security secretary’s word salad raised even more questions about the administration’s assault on fundamental rights":

Days after the Trump administration threatened an attempt to suspend habeas corpus in an effort to bulldoze due-process protections for its mass deportation campaign, one key Cabinet member seems a bit confused about the scheme.

“What is habeas corpus?” Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire asked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a committee hearing Tuesday.

“Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to—,” Noem responded, before a visibly alarmed Hassan intervened.

A Republican in attendance, wanting to save face for his party, might have been tempted to pull the plug on Noem's testimony. But her microphone remained in the on position, producing answers that were painfully loud and clear. Oh writes:

“Let me stop you,” the Democratic lawmaker interjected. “Excuse me, that is incorrect.”

“President Lincoln used it,” Noem insisted.

Hassan then corrected the record: “Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires the government to 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.”

“I support habeas corpus,” Noem said later in the exchange. “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.”

That suggested Noem was not content to dig a small hole for herself. She wanted to dig a nice deep one -- and so she continued, as Oh reports:

But in response to similar claims from the administration, a number of legal experts have noted that it is actually “clear from the Constitution’s text and structure” that only Congress, not the president unilaterally, can suspend habeas corpus. Among other things, the suspension clause at issue appears in Article I of the Constitution, which lays out the powers of Congress. According to George Mason law professor Ilya Somin, “most legal scholars” believe that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus, and Georgetown’s Steve Vladeck described this as a “near-universal consensus.”

Hassan emphasized this point on Tuesday. “It has never been done without approval of Congress,” she said. “Even Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval from Congress.”

What was Noem to do at this point? Keep on talking, of course:

Later in the hearing . . . Noem admitted she was unaware of key aspects of this argument. Asked by Sen. Andy Kim if she knew where in the Constitution the suspension of habeas corpus was discussed, Noem replied: “I do not. Nope.”

So, some simple questions emerge: Does the secretary know what habeas corpus is? Does she understand that it is a fundamental right belonging to individuals and not a dictatorial privilege belonging to the president? Do she and her administration colleagues know who can suspend habeas corpus and when?

Her responses on Tuesday don’t inspire confidence.

After a two-hour phone call in which Putin shows he has little use for Trump, the U.S. president appears to head for the exit with the vow "This Is Not My War"

(CNN)

Did anything worthwhile come out of this week's phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, which was billed as an attempt to end Russia's war with Ukraine?  Most reports have indicated little progress was made toward peace -- some even said the effort had failed -- but one observer noted a development of substance: Putin established himself as the dominant figure in any negotiations that might occur, while Trump is reduced to a bit player who appears ready to toss the whole thing out of his lap. That is  the view of CNN's Nick Paton Walsh, who writes from Kyiv, Ukraine, under the headline "Putin just showed Trump how little he needs him":

“The root causes of the conflict.”

These were startling words from a man purportedly on the path to peace.

But it is the nub of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s position of what must be solved for peace, after two weeks, or three months, depending on how you count, of mounting pressure for an immediate unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Unbothered, taking this most consequential of calls at a music school on the Sochi coast, the Kremlin head has returned to the start – to his false narrative about this war of choice being sparked by NATO expanding too fast.

Five other, different words emerged hours before, that may have echoed in Putin’s ears while he spoke to US President Donald Trump for two hours.

“It is not our war,” said Vice President JD Vance earlier. Reprising his role as the harbinger of very bad news for European security, Vance held out again this remarkable non-threat: that the United States might pull out of the war – presumably from both diplomacy and aid to Ukraine – unless Russia takes steps toward a peace deal it adamantly does not want. Washington backing off is exactly what Russia yearns for, and to earn this dream outcome, it seems Putin has to do absolutely nothing, other than continuing to wage a brutal war.

Moments after the call, Trump already sounded like a man stepping back from the fray. Five days earlier he had been the febrile intermediary, the peacemaker willing to bridge the enmity between Putin and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky for a meeting in Turkey. But after his Monday call with Putin, he simply said Ukraine and Russia must talk directly, “as only they can.” He even passed the task to the home of the new American Pope, the Vatican, as a possible venue. The United States may not be out of the process entirely, but it talks like it wants someone else to lead it.

What happened to the presidential candidate who bragged leading into the 2024 U.S. election that, if elected, he could end the war "in 24 hours"? Did anybody believe that then? Not even Trump appears to believe it now. Instead, the cocky candidate has become the hapless president -- and his words on the campaign trail now sound like they came from the mouth of a fool, a con man, or both. Paton Walsh writes:

The last 10 days have been a vivid reminder of how little Putin really needs POTUS or his approval. And the logic is simple.

For the best part of three years of war, Russia’s state media has been lecturing its audience they are not only in conflict with Ukraine, but also with all of NATO, including the United States. The presidency of Trump has created a small window in which the Kremlin might talk its way into a better position, or even alleviate the pain of some Western sanctions. But it does not change the central calculation or message of the Kremlin: this is an existential war, about re-establishing their pre-eminence in their near abroad. So much pain and loss has been inflicted on the Russian people through staggering war casualties that delivering middling to poor results might significantly limit the longevity of Russia’s leadership. This isn’t a war they can be seen to have lost.

The limits of what the United States can offer Russia at the moment, in terms of leverage, are visible from space. Yes, the US could escalate sanctions, even, as Trump mulled last week, adding “secondary sanctions” against Russia’s financiers, the oil purchasers of India and China. But that would cause another trade-like rift with world powers that Washington has just made good with. The US could alternatively ease sanctions to coax Russia into concessions. But those kid gloves would irk their European allies, and likely falter without Europe’s practical support.

Any further steps to cause Moscow pain would likely mean Trump had gone further to punish Russia than his predecessor Joe Biden did. That is not the MAGA geopolitical gameplan. It would deepen US involvement in a war where there is, frankly, no end in sight, until one side falters, or sees drastic change in political leadership.

Ukraine in 2025 is a bleak prospect. But the central tenet of European policy was the best choice in a world of ghastly options: Moscow could only be forced into reducing its goals if it saw an infinitely united NATO before it. Its economy, reserve wealth, manpower, or hardware might falter – only one needs to for the war machine to stutter. It is bleak, but Europe is left with little choice. Ukraine has no choice at all.

Trump felt he has a choice. His business acumen sees no merit in a long-term investment in a conflict with an enemy you’d prefer to get along with, the best outcome from which is to return Europe to the peace it knew before. There is no deal to be made here. Putin is not buying anything; he seeks to conquer and take. Trump has nothing to sell, bar the United States’ backing for its traditional allies. There is no way Putin and Trump can both win and retain their stature.

Trump took the reins of a nation that enjoyed extraordinary prestige on the world stage. But his bullying leadership, his disdain for human rights and the rule of law, his foreign policy missteps, and an economy placed on shaky ground by Trump's misplaced belief in tariffs have given many Americans the sense that their best days are slipping away. Trump now seems to be pulling back from leadership in a  conflict he says is "not my problem." He even has said "this is not my war." Those don't sound like they will go down among the inspiring quotes in American history. Paton Walsh examines the present and sees a diminished America in the future:

American leadership has for decades been built around something other than good, small deals. Its benevolence toward allies, vast soft power, and military hegemony, has left it the biggest economy on earth, with an undefeatable currency – itself a very good and huge deal.

But Trump sees America’s role as smaller. This may be the moment Trump finally understood Putin as someone who really doesn’t seek his approval or allegiance, and stepped back. If it is, the United States too has stepped back from decades of calling the shots, admitted the limits of its focus and power, and left the most important peace deal since the 1940s to a Hail Mary pass at the Vatican. 

Trump calls for probe of Springsteen, Oprah, Beyonce, and more for campaign-related violations -- but the prez provides no evidence and is off target on the law

Bruce Springsteen: "The Boss" becomes Trump's obsession (Getty)

 

Donald Trump is calling for an investigation of Bruce Springsteen, Beyonce, Oprah Winfrey, and other celebrities he claims were paid to endorse Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Trump makes the accusation even though the government agency that likely would head any probe has said such payments are not unlawful as long as candidates list them as expenditures on filing documents. 

The Guardian examines the issue under the headline "Trump claims without evidence that celebrities were paid to endorse Harris; President urges ‘major investigation’ of Beyoncé, Oprah, Bruce Springsteen and others in late-night social media rant." Rachel Leingang reports:

Donald Trump laced into a few celebrities who endorsed Kamala Harris in late night and early morning screeds on Monday, saying he would investigate them to see if they were paid for the endorsements – repeating a common refrain on the right about the star-studded list of Harris supporters.

“How much did Kamala Harris pay Bruce Springsteen for his poor performance during her campaign for president?” Trump posted in all caps on Truth Social at 1.34am Monday. “Why did he accept that money if he is such a fan of hers? Isn’t that a major and illegal campaign contribution? …And how much went to Oprah, and Bono???”

He said he would “call for a major investigation” into the issue, claiming Harris was illegally paying for endorsements “under the guise of paying for entertainment” and that these efforts artificially boosted her campaign and crowds.

“IT’S NOT LEGAL! For these unpatriotic ‘entertainers,’ this was just a CORRUPT & UNLAWFUL way to capitalize on a broken system,” Trump wrote.

Does Donald Trump claiming something is illegal make it so? No, it does not. In fact, as we have shown several times over the years, Trump is notoriously ignorant of the law. He doesn't seem to know what basic terms, such as probable cause and due process, mean. He doesn't know that presidents have a duty to protect and defend the constitution. Trump was not finished with his overnight rant. He added more invective once the sun had risen, Leingang writes:

On Monday morning, he expanded his claims and said without evidence that Beyoncé was paid $11 million to walk on stage and endorse Harris without performing.

“This is an illegal election scam at the highest level! It is an illegal campaign contribution! Bruce Springsteen, Oprah, Bono and, perhaps, many others, have a lot of explaining to do!!!” Trump wrote in all caps.

Trump is increasingly using the US justice department to carry out his retribution agenda, directing it to investigate his opponents and end investigations into his allies. These moves have led some legal experts to call the department Trump’s “personal law firm”.

Trump, a frequent courter of celebrities, has recently taken aim at several high-profile performers who endorsed or otherwise supported Harris.

Leingang adds to the picture by showing that Trump's idea of a campaign violation does not square with what officials from the Federal Election Commission have stated. She writes:

After Bruce Springsteen spoke out strongly against the Trump administration for its stripping of freedoms, Trump called the New Jersey icon a “dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker”. Before that, he wrote on Truth Social wondering whether “anyone noticed that, since I said ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,’ she’s no longer ‘HOT?’”

The law does not ban candidates from paying for endorsements, the Federal Election Commission told the factchecking outlet Verify in 2022. Though, candidates could run into trouble if they don’t specifically list that an expenditure to a campaign was in exchange for an endorsement.

Trump appears to be relying on material that has been making the rounds in conservative circles for years. For now, it seems he hasn't come up with anything unlawful or anything that is new. His allegations look like baseless retreads, Leingang writes:

The claims that Harris paid celebrities to endorse her are not new, but Trump didn’t offer any evidence to support them. The Harris campaign has denied it paid anyone to endorse her, and the celebrities involved have also denied they were paid for an endorsement.

Campaign finance reports show Oprah’s production company, Harpo, was paid $1m for a town hall event by the Harris campaign, while Beyoncé’s production company was paid $165,000.

Oprah has strenuously denied being paid any money to endorse Harris. She wrote on Instagram that she “was not paid a dime” but that “the people who worked on that production needed to be paid. And were. End of story.” Her company brought in set design, lights, cameras, crew, producers, benches, chairs – anything required to carry out the event, she said.

Tina Knowles, Beyoncé’s mother, posted about false claims circulated by the rightwing media personality Candace Owens about Beyoncé getting paid to endorse.

“The lie is that Beyonce was paid 10 million dollars to speak at a rally in Houston for Vice President Kamala Harris. When In Fact : Beyonce did not receive a penny for speaking at Presidential candidate Kamala Harrris’s Rally in Houston. In fact she actually paid for her own flights for her and her team, and total Glam,” Knowles wrote.

The Harris campaign told Deadline after the 2024 election that campaign finance laws required them to pay for some costs of a performance, like travel or production, but that the campaign had never paid a fee to artists or performers who appeared on the campaign trail.

A spokesperson told the outlet the campaign had followed all campaign finance laws “religiously”.

We can understand Donald Trump firing back at Bruce Springsteen after The Boss' accurate critique, but why harsh words for Taylor Swift? Is Trump losing it?

 

Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen (consequence.net)

Bruce Springsteen probably expected Donald Trump to fire back at him after "The Boss" criticized the administration on the opening night of his European concert tour in Manchester, England. But another music icon, Taylor Swift, has wisely ignored Trump since her record-breaking Eras tour and the 2024 presidential election concluded. So Swift must be thinking, "What did I do to deserve this?" after Trump included her in his latest barrage of insults.

Anna Chan, of Billboard, seems to be thinking the same thing after reporting under the headline "Donald Trump Can’t Seem to Stop Taunting Taylor Swift & Now Claims She’s ‘No Longer Hot’;The president has been mocking the superstar since she started sharing her political views in 2018." Chan writes:

Eight months after he shared on the same social media platform that he hates the 14-time Grammy winner, the twice-impeached president posted, “Has anyone noticed that, since I said ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,’ she’s no longer ‘HOT?'”

Billboard has reached out to Swift’s rep for comment.

The insult seemingly came out of thin air, as Swift has not spoken about Trump since endorsing Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for president in September. Her support of President Joe Biden’s vice president came after the business mogul shared an AI image of the “Anti-Hero” singer falsely endorsing him for a second term in office.

“It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth,” the star wrote of the fake image at the time. “I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.” 

Swift concluded that message — which was accompanied by a photo of her with her beloved cat Benjamin Button — by signing off as “Childless Cat Lady,” a dig at Vice President JD Vance’s comments about Democrats who don’t have kids.

Five days after the superstar backed his opponent, Trump posted on Truth Social in all caps, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!”

Doesn't it make you all warm inside to know Americans, seemingly of sound mind (although we aren't so sure about Trump's mind), going to the polls and choosing such a classy president to occupy the White House? "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT" sounds like something a petulant 6-year-old might write. Then again, that seems to be the intellectual wavelength on which Trump often operates. It should be noted, however, that Trump once seemed to have a somewhat mentally balanced approach toward the subject of Swift, Chan reports:

While they never had mad love for each other, Trump — who in May 2024 was convicted of 34 felony counts in his hush money case — did previously appreciate the singer-songwriter. In August 2012, he wrote on X (then Twitter) to thank the star for a photo, closing his message with “you are fantastic!” Months later in October, he congratulated her on landing the co-hosting gig announcing the Grammy nominations special, ending his tweet with “Taylor is terrific!”

But once Swift began sharing her political leanings in 2018, when she urged the voters of Tennessee to vote against Republican Marsha Blackburn in the midterms, Trump’s opinion of the star shifted. “Let’s just say I like Taylor’s music about 25% less now, OK?” he told reporters at the White House.

So, what happened? Is Trump jealous of the attention Swift receives and the vast sums of money she has accumulated -- a reported $1.6 billion? Does he sense that Swift's supporters, "The Swifties," are more ardent about her than MAGAs are about him? Is Tump no longer mentally balanced? My guess is that all four of those factors trigger Trump's insults toward Swift. That's not a very "adult" way to behave, but we have a "leader of the free world" who doesn't always behave like an adult.

Donald Trump decides to verbally spar with Bruce Springsteen and winds up on the receiving end of a beatdown, as "The Boss" shows the prez who is boss

Someone needs to whip Trump's ass. Could Bruce Springsteen do it? You make the call. (Jeff Tiedrich)

Has the president of the United States issued a threat against one of the most revered artists in the modern history of American music? To arrive at an answer to that question, let's examine the verbal fireworks that exploded over the weekend between Donald Trump and Bruce Springsteen, long known in musical circles as "The Boss," a sign of the respect he has engendered over a career spanning more than 50 years. The son of a bus driver, Springsteen's legend grew from humble roots in Freehold, a township of 35,000 people about  a 30-minute drive from the New Jersey coast. Springsteen long has been associated with Asbury Park, a beach town that includes the Stone Pony music venue, which helped launch his career. 

How did verbal sparks start to fly between Trump an Springsteen? The short answer: Springsteen committed the mortal sin of speaking honestly and from the heart about the assault on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law that is "happening now" under the Trump administration. Springsteen spoke from the stage on opening night of his European concert tour, which kicked off in Manchester, England. A sold-out crowd of 23,500 packed Co-op Live Arena to see Springsteen with his E-Street Band. The first show on "The Land of Hope and Dreams" Tour drew rave reviews, such as this one from the Manchester Evening News and this one from the Liverpool Echo and this one from Mojo Magazine.

A full transcript of Springsteen's Trump-related remarks can be read here, at the Blogness on the Edge of Town website. A video post of the Springsteen concert in Manchester, from the "Blogness" site, is available via a link at the end of this post.

Trump doesn't seem to care for honesty, and he likes criticism even less, so he responded in typical Trump fashion -- with insults and threats. He even expanded his blitzkrieg of insults to include another musical icon, Taylor Swift -- and we can find no reports that she has said anything of substance about Trump in the past year or so -- at least not since her record-breaking Eras tour ended and the 2024 election -- in which she was an outspoken supporter of Democrat Kamala Harris -- was in the books. We will have more on Trump's inexplicable verbal assault against Taylor Swift in an upcoming post. But first, let's look at details on the Trump-Springsteen contretemps, which come from Newsweek in an article published yesterday under the headline "Bruce Springsteen Speaks Out Again After Trump's 'Dried-Out Prune' Jibe." London-based investigative reporter Kate Plummer reports:

Bruce Springsteen has spoken out against the White House again after President Donald Trump called him a "dried-out prune" on social media.

Speaking in Manchester, England, the musician criticized the government for the second time during his Land of Hopes and Dreams tour, despite Trump previously biting back.

Why It Matters

Springsteen is an influential figure who has released 21 studio albums over the past five-plus decades. The 75-year-old musician has previously endorsed Democratic candidates, including former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden and ahead of the 2024 presidential election described Trump as the "most dangerous candidate for president" in his lifetime.

Tensions between Springsteen and Trump started when the rocker denounced the administration in the opening remarks of his tour in Manchester on Wednesday night, resulting in the president lashing out in response.

What To Know

"Tonight we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experiment to rise with us, raise your voice against authoritarianism and let freedom ring," Springsteen said on Wednesday.

He also referenced Trump's deportations and said America was "persecuting people for using their right to free speech and voicing their dissent."

He said Trump was "an unfit president" who was in charge of "a rogue government" that was "corrupt, incompetent and treasonous."

In response, Trump took to his social-media platform Truth Social and called Springsteen "a pushy, obnoxious JERK" and a "dried-out 'prune' of a rocker."

Springsteen did not back down; in fact, he went after Trump even harder. If Springsteen said anything that is untrue, I can't find it. His was an eloquent voice, speaking out of pain, frustration, and anger -- sentiments clearly shared by many of his fellow Americans. The message might have included a touch of fear, even for someone as famous and beloved as Springsteen. The fear, I'm guessing, does not grow from Trump but out of a chunk of our populace -- people both powerful and powerless -- who seem unconcerned about the economic and societal calamity that is brewing around the next bend. In fact, many people who supported Trump in 2024, it appears, would be fine if Trump managed to return to the White House for a constitutionally prohibited third term. Plummer addresses Springsteen's retort to Trump's social-media post:

Springsteen spoke out again after Trump's social media post, saying that events in America "are altering the very nature of our country's democracy."

"In my home, they're persecuting people for their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. That's happening now," Springsteen said. "In America, the richest men are taking satisfaction in abandoning the world's poorest children to sickness and death. That's happening now. In my country, they're taking sadistic pleasure in the pain they inflict on loyal American workers."

He added that authorities were "removing residents off American streets without due process" and that elected officials had "utterly failed to protect the American people from the abuses of an unfit president and a rogue government."

What People Are Saying

President Donald Trump on Truth Social: "Sleepy Joe didn't have a clue as to what he was doing, but Springsteen is 'dumb as a rock,' and couldn't see what was going on, or could he (which is even worse!)? This dried out 'prune' of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that's just 'standard fare.' Then we'll all see how it goes for him!"

Republican California Governor candidate Steve Hilton wrote on X: "I may not have been 'born in the USA' like Bruce Springsteen, but I moved here and became an American by choice. So I'm disgusted to see him running around England criticizing our country. Maybe he should stay there!"

What Happens Next

Springsteen's tour is scheduled to run until July and will see him play 16 shows across six European countries.

A link to a video post of the Springsteen concert is available here. (Hat tip to Blogness on the Edge of Town.)

Trump insists Qatar is offering a "free" luxury jet, but that doesn't account for the cost of maintaining and operating an aircraft with complex safety and security features -- projected at $7.7 billion over 30 years

Inside Air Force One (YouTube)

Donald Trump claims he will receive a "free" luxury jet as a gift from the royal family of Qatar. And since the jet is "free," Trump states, the transaction will be a significant benefit to the American public. Unfortunately, that is not quite true, according to an article at Politico.  Under the headline "Trump’s free plane is not so free; The Boeing aircraft that Qatar may give the president would require a pricey and complicated overhaul to serve as Air Force One," Joe Gould and Connor O'Brien report:

President Donald Trump insists he’s getting a “free, very expensive airplane” from Qatar’s royal family. But it’s not much of a gift for the American taxpayer.

The Qatari Defense Ministry is talking to the White House about transferring the luxury-configured Boeing jet to the Pentagon, which would oversee its retrofitting into a makeshift Air Force One. But a private contractor would have to rip it apart to turn the jet into a flying White House for the president with secure communications and classified upgrades, according to former Air Force officials and lawmakers, an expensive and complicated prospect that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

“This isn’t really a gift,” said Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, which oversees executive airlift. “You’d basically have to tear the plane down to the studs and rebuild it to meet all the survivability, security and communications requirements of Air Force One. It’s a massive undertaking — and an unfunded one at that.”

Administration officials argue that the current aircraft — two aging military versions of the Boeing 747 — are increasingly hard to maintain, and the replacements are years behind schedule. A third aircraft could help fill the gap.

“It’s a great gesture from Qatar,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person and say, ‘No, we don’t want a free, very expensive airplane.’”

Trump is not sharing the full story with taxpayers, Gould and O'Brien report. Given that Trump has flown on aircraft in the fleet that comprises Air Force One, one might expect a president who is early in his second term would be familiar with survivability, security, and communications requirements for such jets. If Trump is aware of that information, he is not letting on. Is Trump playing the American public for dummies? Would Donald Trump do that? The Politico report suggests the answer might be yes:

The aircraft in question — a Boeing 747-8 jet once owned by Qatar’s royal family — is the same base model as the two VC-25Bs currently under slow and costly modifications by Boeing. And that’s where the similarity ends.

“It’s what’s inside the aircraft that matters,” said Kevin Buckley, a former Air Force official who oversaw the Air Force One replacement program. “The presidential mission equipment is unique. It’s hardened. It’s secure. It’s survivable.”

The aircraft would need to be torn down and rebuilt from the inside out — including overhauling electrical wiring, avionics and power systems — to install secure presidential communications, self-defense tech and electromagnetic shielding.

“The cost of a retrofit like this would likely be on the order of a heavy maintenance cycle for a VC-25A, which is in the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars,” said former Air Force acquisitions chief Andrew Hunter.

Add to that the significant cost of sweeping the aircraft for software modifications or embedded foreign tech. “That’s not a trivial thing to do,” Hunter said. “That alone would cost tens of millions of dollars.”

Building the aircraft is one thing, but maintaining and operating a presidential aircraft at the very highest standards is an expensive prospect all on its own. Each VC-25B costs more than $2.5 billion, with another $7.7 billion in projected long-term operations and support costs over 30 years, according to a 2021 internal Pentagon estimate.

“This gift could become a very expensive asset to own and operate,” Hunter said. “You might even ask why Qatar no longer wants the aircraft. And the answer may be that it’s too expensive for them to maintain.”

The possibility of an aircraft gift from Qatar comes as the VC-25B program is operating under stress, Gould and O'Brien write:

The VC-25B program itself is already behind schedule, and Boeing now projects delivery in 2027 — but only if some requirements are trimmed, Air Force acquisition official Darlene Costello told Congress this month.

Buckley predicts the retrofit of the Qatari aircraft will compete with or strain the workforce involved with the VC-25B.

“If you’re pulling people into doing this new thing, you’re not pulling them out of the air,” he said. “You’re pulling them out of the same labor pool — and a very specialized one. You’re talking about people with high clearances who already have a ton of work on their plate.”

Democrats have largely denounced Trump for the ethical concerns with accepting the gifted plane from Qatar. But Trump argued the move would prove a money saver, calling Democrats “world class losers” for questioning the move.

“The fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane,” Trump said in a Sunday Truth Social post. “Anybody can do that!”

In a move that should surprise no one, Trump has chosen to demonize those who take a different view of the "Jetgate" controversy from the rosy picture Trump paints. Trashing the integrity of perceived adversaries has been a standard Trump tactic for years -- as has his persistent failure to speak truthfully.

In this instance, Trump claims the U.S. would receive the jet free of charge, but we know that is not true. He also claims the transaction has been transparent, but that isn't true either. As usual, Trump shows no respect for people who have expertise, especially those who work in complex fields -- medicine, science, research, aviation; Trump prefers his own brand of blissful ignorance, which is on embarrassing display in "Jetgate."

Critics fire away from left and right as Trump plans to accept the gift of a jet from Qatar, raising questions about Pam Bondi's ties to a sketchy Alabama politico

A private jet from Qatar (BBC)

 

Donald Trump is defending his plan to accept the gift of a $400-million jet from the royal family of Qatar. In the process, Trump reveals that he is clueless about a key provision of the U.S. Constitution, which he is sworn to preserve and protect. We also learn that Trump's attorney general apparently is as ignorant as her boss about our nation's governing document. That should be an embarrassment to all Americans, especially those who went to the polls last November and decided it would be a wise move to support a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, and proven failure during his first term to run our country again. On top of all that, we now know Trump is terrible at nominating people to fill key roles in his administration -- and that includes Pam Bondi, his choice as AG, "the people's lawyer." 

The "JetGate" scandal involving Qatar has taught us that Trump and Bondi seem to form blank looks when confronted with a constitutional provision known as the Emoluments Clause. This is how Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution reads:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Do those words indicate the JetGate gift would violate the U.S. Constitution? It sure does. And how did Pam Bondi conclude such a transaction would be legal? That is not clear, but she has been connected to ethically questionable activities before. In fact, we have reported on Bondi's ties to Jessica Medeiros Garrison, an Alabama lawyer/political figure with a sketchy history. Bondi and Garrison were central figures in a series of articles The New York Times published in 2014 about corporate entities lobbying "The People's lawyers" in various states via state attorneys general associations that tended to operate in political shadows.)

In 2021, The New York Times exposed Garrison's dubious right-wing connections a second time, on this occasion under the headline "The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It." The '21 article focused on a controversial facial-recognition company called Clearview AI (which has deep ties to the political right, including Donald Trump). Clearview has faced a series of legal battles, including one with the Dutch data protection watchdog, which issued a fine of 30.5 million euros ($33.7 million) over its creation of what the agency called an “illegal database” of billions of facial photos. (Note: Garrison has remarried, so her name now is Jessica Medeiros Garrison Morrow.)

Speaking of Trump, what about his JetGate plans with Qatar? They appear to be illegal on their face, and  U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) intends to drive that point home to the American people,  according to a report from The Hill: 

Raskin, in an appearance on CNN, was asked if he thought strings were attached to the gift.

“Well, undoubtedly there are,” he replied. “But it doesn’t make any difference because the Constitution forbids the president from accepting any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever.”

“The Constitution says, from a king, prince, or foreign state, without the consent of Congress,” the Maryland Democrat added. “So, he’s got to come to Congress first.” 

He pointed to the Statue of Liberty as an example. In 1877, former President Grant — on his last day in office — signed a joint-Congressional resolution to accept the gift from France.

In 1886, former President Cleveland (D) officially received the statue that would become part of New York City’s iconic landscape.

“You got to go to Congress in order to accept a gift from a foreign government, which is what this is, and obviously there’s all kinds of national security implications because it is a government giving us this plane,” Raskin told host Erin Burnett on CNN’s “OutFront.”

In a jointly published article at BBC News and Yahoo! News -- under the headline "Trump defends plan to use Qatari luxury jet for Air Force One" -- made it clear he intends to accept the gift, with no apparent hint of going through Congress:

"They're giving us a gift," Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday, adding that he would be "a stupid person" if he did not accept it.

In an earlier statement, a Qatari spokesman said it would be "inaccurate" to refer to the plane as a gift. He said the transfer of an aircraft for "temporary use" was under discussion between the two countries.

The news comes as Trump is visiting the Middle East and Qatar this week, part of the first major foreign trip of his second term.

Speaking on Monday, Trump said that the US had helped the other country "a lot over the years in terms of security and safety" and that he had "a lot of respect for the leadership" of the country.

He went on to say it would be a "very nice gesture" if Qatar provided the US with a Boeing jet while his government continued to wait for two new ones to be provided directly by Boeing itself.

The potential value of the plane and its handling has raised legal and ethical questions among critics on the political left and right.

The US Constitution has a provision known as the Emoluments Clause, which restricts what gifts US presidents can accept from foreign governments. It was designed to prevent leaders from becoming beholden to foreign governments.

On social media, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff from California quoted a section of the US Constitution that said no elected official could accept "any present... of any kind whatever" from the leader of a foreign state without congressional approval.

Congressman Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, called on the Government Accountability Office to investigate, saying the plane could "constitute the most valuable gift ever conferred on a president by a foreign government".

But there was criticism, too, from some of Trump's staunchest supporters.

Daily Wire podcaster Ben Shapiro lambasted the plane deal on Monday as "skeezy".

"Is this good for President Trump?" Shapiro said. "Is it good for his agenda? Is it good for draining the swamp and getting things done? The answer is no, it isn't."

Far-right influencer Laura Loomer also criticised the move. She posted to say she would "take a bullet" for the president, but that any decision to accept the jet would be "such a stain" on the administration.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Sunday that "any gift given by a foreign government is always accepted in full compliance with all applicable laws. President Trump's administration is committed to full transparency."

Leavitt apparently does not consider the U.S. Constitution to be part of "all applicable laws," possibly because that's the way her boss sees it -- and her job is to ensure that chunks of the American electorate believe anything Trump says:

The White House's current fleet includes two Boeing 747-200B planes customised for presidential use with special communications equipment and features like a state room, office and conference room. The planes have been in use since 1990 and 1991.

Qatar is said to be offering a version of a Boeing 747-8, a much newer model that ABC News reports has been upgraded into a "flying palace".

The plane, reported to be worth about $400m (£303m), would not be ready for use right away if provided to the US, as it would need to be retrofitted and cleared by security officials, sources told CBS, the BBC's US partner.

Boeing already has been contracted to directly provide the White House with two 747-8s, but Trump complained earlier this year that the firm was behind schedule.

His team negotiated to receive these during his first term in office, though Boeing has cautioned that they will not be available for two or three more years.

Qatar - a country with which Trump has long had a positive relationship - has also previously given private jets as gifts to other countries, including Turkey.

This would not be the first Trump-related deal with Qatar. Last month, his company signed a deal to build a luxury golf resort there, marking its first foreign deal since the Republican returned to office in January.

According to CBS, the plane that Trump could acquire would be donated at the end of his term to his presidential library, which is a collection of artifacts related to a US leader's time in office.

Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts graduate student who was abducted off the street by masked ICE agents, is released due to concerns about free speech issues

Rumeysa Ozturk (Reuters)

 

A Turkish graduate student, who was abducted off the street by masked ICE agents and thrust into an unmarked vehicle, has been released by a federal judge, who noted the chilling impact her case could have on freedom of speech. Under the headline "Federal judge orders release of Tufts student," Anemona Hartocollis and Jonah E. Bromwich report for The New York Times (NYT):

Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University student, was released from immigration detention on Friday after a federal judge said her continued detention could potentially chill “the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens.”

At a hearing at the Federal District Court in Vermont, the judge, William K. Sessions III, said Ms. Ozturk should be freed immediately: “Her continued detention cannot stand.”

Ms. Ozturk, a doctoral student from Turkey, had been held at the immigration detention center in Basile, La., for six weeks. Her lawyers said she was expected to return home to Massachusetts on Saturday.

There was a delay in Ms. Ozturk’s release on Friday as federal officials sought to outfit her with an ankle monitor. The move prompted Judge Sessions to issue a second order on Friday afternoon, clarifying that she was to be released immediately, without any form of Immigration and Customs monitoring.

Ms. Ozturk, he wrote, was “not subject to any travel restrictions.” She was released around 5:15 Central Standard Time.

On March 25, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks and plainclothes surrounded her outside her home in Somerville, Mass., while she was on the phone with her mother. She was put on a plane to the detention center in Louisiana, and her friends, family and lawyers didn’t know where she was for 24 hours, they said.

Her arrest led to public outrage at her treatment and criticism that the government is abusing the immigration system to deport international students, in the guise of combating antisemitism. In seeking her release, her lawyers have accused the government of detaining her in retaliation for speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The main evidence against her appears to be an essay critical of Israel that she helped to write in a Tufts student newspaper last year.

They also said the conditions at the detention center were exacerbating her chronic asthma and preventing her from carrying out her academic work.

An attorney for Ozturk seemed to capture the outrage that sparked protests over the detention:

Her lawyer, Mahsa Khanbabai, said she was “relieved and ecstatic” that Ms. Ozturk had been released.

“When did speaking up against oppression become a crime?” Ms. Khanbabai asked. “When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?”

Ms. Ozturk appeared at the hearing on Friday by a remote feed from detention to the courtroom in Burlington, Vt. Ms. Ozturk, who is Muslim, wore a head scarf and an orange coverall.

A little over an hour into the hearing, she appeared to suffer an asthma attack, coughing and choking, and the judge allowed her to leave the feed for a while.

Ms. Ozturk testified that she had experienced escalating asthma attacks since her arrest. The first attack came when the plane that was taking her from Vermont to Louisiana stopped in Atlanta, she said.

A pulmonologist, Dr. Jessica McCannon, testified that Ms. Ozturk’s asthma was poorly controlled in detention and would continue to get worse if she were not released. She said that she had not been able to physically examine Ms. Ozturk but had spoken to her and reviewed her medical records.

The hearing had been expedited by Judge Sessions. Earlier this week, a federal appeals court ordered that she be transferred to Vermont by next week to attend a bail hearing. But Judge Sessions decided to hold the hearing with Ms. Ozturk still in Louisiana.

The hearing was held in Vermont because Ms. Ozturk had spent the night there in the custody of federal agents on the way to Louisiana, on a circuitous route that her lawyers said had prevented them from finding her.

Government lawyers in the appeals court hearing declined to discuss questions about speech raised by another judge. But Judge Sessions did not mince words on Friday, suggesting the government was trying to deport Ms. Ozturk based on the slenderest of evidence that she had posed a threat to American foreign policy interests.

“There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the Op-Ed,” he said in granting her release.

He added that non-citizens “may now avoid exercising their First Amendment rights for fear of being whisked away to a detention center from their home.”

Department of Homeland Security officials have said that Ms. Ozturk had “engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans.” And following her arrest, Secretary of State Marco Rubio commented on Ms. Ozturk’s detention at a news conference, saying that she had not been given a visa to “become a social activist that tears up our university campuses.”

But during the hearing on Friday, the government’s lawyer, Michael Drescher, called no witnesses and hardly spoke. When he did speak, it was mainly to raise technical issues about the conditions of her bail.

Mr. Drescher asked the judge to bear in mind that even though Ms. Ozturk was being released from immigration custody, the deportation proceeding against her would continue in immigration court.

Judge Sessions said Ms. Ozturk was free to return home. He said he did not see any risk that she would flee. “She’s also free to travel to Massachusetts and Vermont as she sees fit” for further court appearances, he added.

The judge said he wanted to give Ms. Ozturk maximum mobility so she could pursue the educational opportunities that she needed to complete her doctorate.

Ms. Ozturk testified that she had been confined with 23 other women in a space intended for 14 people. Stress and the smells of cleaning supplies had exacerbated her asthma, she said. But when she sought treatment, the medical staff at the detention center had been condescending and had raised their voices at her, she said, and a nurse had ripped off her head scarf.

She testified that it was “impossible” to work on her dissertation in detention because she did not have access to her computer, professors, library or peers. Ms. Ozturk, who specializes in children’s media, is due to finish her doctoral dissertation in December and to obtain her degree in February, according to the testimony.

Her adviser, Sara Johnson, testified that Ms. Ozturk had been doing innovative research on how adolescents used social media to benefit other people.

In describing her ties to the Tufts community, Ms. Ozturk said she had helped organize an event with colleagues where community members came together to express grief for children in conflict areas around the world, “from Gaza to Israel, from Russia to Ukraine, from Congo to Haiti, from Sudan to Yemen, from Cameroon to Afghanistan, from all parts of the world.”

The judge’s decision was another defeat for the government’s efforts to deport international students associated with pro-Palestinian advocacy. A week ago, a different federal judge in Vermont, Geoffrey W. Crawford, ordered the release of Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student, from detention on bail.

Mr. Mahdawi is a permanent resident of the United States and is about to graduate from Columbia in May. His lawyers say the government detained him in retaliation for his pro-Palestinian activism. He was arrested on April 14, after a naturalization interview at an immigration field office.