During a White House roundtable discussion on antifascism this Wednesday, former President Donald Trump appeared confused when questioned about suspending habeas corpus. The exchange quickly drew attention for highlighting his apparent lack of familiarity with the term. A conservative journalist attending the event asked Trump if he had ever considered suspending habeas corpus to handle what the reporter described as “insurrectionists across the nation” and to “speed up the deportation of illegal aliens.” In response, Trump looked puzzled and asked, “Suspending who?” The journalist clarified, repeating the term “habeas corpus.” Trump replied, “Oh, I don’t know. I’d rather leave that to Kristi,” referring to his Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem. Turning to Noem, Trump asked for her opinion. “What do you think?” he said. Noem responded, “No, sir, I haven’t been part of any discussions on that.” This exchange quickly circulated on social media, where many noted that both Trump and Noem seemed unclear about the meaning of habeas corpus. The term refers to a fundamental legal principle that prevents unlawful detention. It requires the government to provide a clear and public reason before holding someone in custody. Habeas corpus has long been considered a cornerstone of civil liberty in democratic societies. The right dates back to English common law and was later embedded in the U.S. Constitution to ensure government accountability and protect citizens from arbitrary imprisonment. In May, Noem had already faced criticism for her earlier misunderstanding of the term during a Senate hearing. She had offered an inaccurate definition, which sparked online debate about her legal knowledge. The latest event appeared to repeat a similar pattern of confusion among top officials. Legal experts were quick to point out the seriousness of the issue. They explained that suspending habeas corpus would represent a significant constitutional step. Historically, such suspensions have been rare and mostly tied to national emergencies, such as during the Civil War under President Abraham Lincoln. Some observers noted that Trump’s lack of clarity might indicate a deeper misunderstanding of the legal framework surrounding executive powers. Others saw the moment as symbolic of broader concerns about the administration’s grasp of constitutional law. During his first term, Trump often faced criticism for challenging legal norms and expanding executive authority. His comments on habeas corpus revived debates about whether a future administration led by him would respect traditional limits on presidential power. Stephen Miller, who served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff overseeing immigration policy, had told reporters in May that the administration was “actively looking at” the idea of suspending habeas corpus to enable faster deportations. The statement had already raised alarms among civil rights groups and constitutional scholars. Habeas corpus protects not only citizens but also non-citizens from being detained without legal cause. Legal analysts said that any attempt to suspend it for deportation purposes would likely face immediate court challenges. The White House roundtable where the exchange occurred was intended to discuss antifascism and law enforcement strategies. However, the confusion over the term quickly overshadowed the event’s main agenda. Clips of Trump’s reaction circulated widely online, with critics pointing to the moment as evidence of his weak understanding of key legal terms. Despite the public reaction, Trump and his team did not release any clarification or further comment after the event. Analysts said this silence might reflect a reluctance to engage in discussions involving complex constitutional concepts. While political supporters dismissed the incident as insignificant, legal scholars emphasized the importance of understanding habeas corpus. They said it remains a key safeguard of justice, ensuring that the government cannot imprison people without due process. The brief exchange at the White House thus reignited old concerns about Trump’s handling of legal issues. It reminded many observers that fundamental rights like habeas corpus are more than legal terms—they are vital protections for democracy itself.