Trump’s Startling Admission on NBC
In a revealing interview on NBC’s Meet the Press with Kristen Welker on May 4, 2025, former President Donald Trump made a statement that sent shockwaves through legal and political circles. When asked whether he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s assertion that “of course” all people in the U.S. are entitled to due process, Trump responded with unexpected uncertainty.
“I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know,” Trump said, suggesting that providing due process would require “a million or two million or three million trials,” which he implied would be impractical.
This statement comes amid the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation efforts targeting immigrants and non-citizens. The former president’s apparent questioning of a fundamental constitutional principle has sparked intense debate about the administration’s commitment to upholding the Constitution.
The Constitutional Foundation of Due Process
Due process is not a modern legal innovation or a partisan policy preference—it’s a bedrock principle of American democracy enshrined in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment explicitly states that “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Legal scholars unanimously emphasize that the framers deliberately chose the word “person” rather than “citizen,” extending these protections to everyone within U.S. jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this interpretation, including in cases involving non-citizens. In landmark decisions like Wong Wing v. United States (1896), the Court affirmed that due process protections apply to all persons within U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship status.
The Context: Mass Deportations and Legal Challenges
Trump’s comments don’t exist in a vacuum. They come amid his administration’s implementation of controversial immigration policies, including mass deportations that have faced significant legal challenges.
The administration has been criticized for bypassing judicial hearings in deportation cases. In one notable example, over 200 Venezuelan men were deported to a prison in El Salvador under claims of gang membership, despite a lack of evidence presented in court. The Supreme Court has intervened in several cases, ruling that these individuals are entitled to due process.
The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia highlights these concerns. Despite a judge’s order barring his removal, this Salvadoran man was deported. The Supreme Court ordered the government to facilitate his return, but the administration has not fully complied.
Expert Reactions: Constitutional Alarm Bells
Constitutional experts have expressed grave concerns about Trump’s comments. When a sitting president questions the applicability of due process—a principle that predates the nation itself—it raises fundamental questions about the administration’s approach to governance.
“The language of the Fifth Amendment couldn’t be clearer,” notes constitutional scholar Amanda Rodriguez. “Due process applies to all persons, not just citizens. This isn’t a matter of political opinion but constitutional fact.”
Political analysts point out that Trump’s remarks represent more than just a casual misstatement. They reflect a broader pattern of challenging constitutional norms and judicial authority that has characterized his administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.
The Human Impact
Beyond legal abstractions, these policies have real consequences for families. U.S. citizen children of deported parents have been sent to countries like Honduras with their mothers, including a 4-year-old cancer patient who subsequently lacked access to necessary medical care.
“When we start picking and choosing who deserves constitutional protections, we undermine the very foundation of our legal system,” says civil rights attorney Marcus Johnson. “Due process isn’t just a legal nicety—it’s what prevents arbitrary government action against any person.”
A Dangerous Precedent?
Trump’s administration has invoked rarely used wartime laws, such as the Alien Enemies Act, to justify expedited deportations. This approach has been criticized as legal overreach and an attempt to circumvent due process requirements.
The Supreme Court has blocked some of these actions, emphasizing the need for judicial oversight. This tension between executive authority and judicial review highlights the importance of constitutional checks and balances.
What’s at Stake
Trump’s uncertainty about due process rights goes beyond immigration policy. It raises fundamental questions about constitutional governance and the rule of law:
- If due process can be questioned for one group, whose rights might be questioned next?
- What happens when political expediency takes precedence over constitutional principles?
- How do we maintain judicial independence when the executive branch challenges or ignores court rulings?
The Path Forward
As citizens, we must recognize what’s at stake when fundamental constitutional principles are questioned. Due process isn’t a partisan issue—it’s the foundation of American justice that protects all of us from arbitrary government action.
Regardless of one’s position on immigration policy, the Constitution establishes clear parameters for how those policies must be implemented. When leaders express uncertainty about these basic protections, it’s essential for citizens to reaffirm their commitment to constitutional governance.
Democracy requires vigilance. Understanding and defending constitutional principles like due process isn’t just for lawyers and judges—it’s the responsibility of every American who values liberty and justice for all.
