Is due process different for undocumented immigrants as Trump claims?

In a recent TV interview, United States President Donald Trump said he did not know whether he needed to uphold the US Constitution.

Trump was answering a question on NBC News last week about whether undocumented immigrants in the US are entitled to due process.

“They talk about due process, but do you get due process when you’re here illegally,” Trump asked the interviewer, Kristen Welker, NBC’s Meet the Press moderator.

“The Constitution says every person, citizens and noncitizens, deserves due process,” Welker responded.

She then asked Trump whether he agreed with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said noncitizens are entitled to due process.

Trump: “I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.”

Welker: “Well, the Fifth Amendment says as much.”

Trump: “I don’t know. It might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials.”

Welker: “But even given those numbers that you’re talking about, don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?”

Trump: “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said is not what I heard the Supreme Court said. They have a different interpretation.”

That was not the first time Trump had brushed aside immigrants’ due process rights.

In an ABC News interview marking Trump’s first 100 days in office, correspondent Terry Moran asked Trump, “But in our country, even bad guys get due process, right?”

Trump answered, “If people come into our country illegally, there’s a different standard.”

During a May 1 speech at the University of Alabama’s commencement ceremony, Trump said, “Judges are interfering supposedly based on due process, but how can you give due process to people who came into our country illegally? They want to give them due process. I don’t know.”

Days later, while announcing that the 2027 NFL (National Football League) draft will be in Washington, DC, Trump said, “The courts have, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, they said, maybe you have to have trials. Trials. We’re gonna have five million trials? Doesn’t work … Past presidents took out hundreds of thousands of people when needed … They didn’t go through any of this.”

Despite Trump’s dismissal of and questions about due process for immigrants, the US Constitution, legal experts and decades of court decisions agree: immigrants, regardless of how they entered the US, legally or illegally, have due process rights.

What those rights look like varies depending on how long a person has been in the US and what their legal status is.

What are due process rights?

Due process generally refers to the government’s requirement to follow fair procedures and laws. The Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect “any person” against being deprived by the US government of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

“People have a right to be heard, and there are certain steps that need to be taken before someone can, say, be jailed,” Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a lawyer and policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, said.

Several court rulings have determined that due process rights are extended to all people in the US, not just US citizens or immigrants in the country legally. The US Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act dictate the process the government must use to afford immigrants due process rights.

In immigration, due process generally refers to “appropriate notice [of government action], the opportunity to have a hearing or some sort of screening interview to figure out, are you actually a person who falls within the law that says that you can be deported”, Katherine Yon Ebright, a lawyer at the Brennan Centre for Justice’s Liberty and National Security programme, said.

For example, if the government seeks to deport people who are undocumented, the government generally must give them a charging document known as a “notice to appear”. Eventually, immigrants go before an immigration judge to present evidence and make a case that they qualify for some form of relief against deportation, such as asylum.

Without due process, legal experts say, US citizens could also be deported.

“The whole point of due process is to determine whether you’re the kind of person who can be subject to deportation,” Ilya Somin, a George Mason University constitutional law professor, said. “If there is no due process, then the government can simply deport people or punish them at will … Because how can you show that you’re actually a US citizen if you’re not getting any due process?”

How do due process rights differ for noncitizens compared with US citizens?

Even though all people in the US have due process rights, for noncitizens, the specifics of the process and the extent of protections vary. The term noncitizen applies to people with legal documents as well as those without any documents, including people here on visas, with lawful permanent status or without a legal immigration status.

There is a “sliding scale of different protections that people can have depending on what their [immigration] status is”, Yon Ebright said.

Noncitizens are not entitled to government-appointed lawyers during immigration proceedings, for example. And some immigrants who recently entered the US without a legal document do not have to appear before a judge before being deported; these cases are subject to what is called the expedited removal process.

Under expedited removal, certain people can be quickly deported without a court case. However, people who express fear of persecution if they return to their home countries are referred to immigration officers, who determine whether the immigrant is eligible for asylum or other deportation protections. Immigrants who pass the “credible fear” screening are referred to an immigration court where they can present their case.

In the past, people were placed in expedited removal if they were within 100 miles (about 161km) of the border and within two weeks of their entry. In January, Trump expanded expedited removal for anyone who cannot prove they have been in the US for more than two years.

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime power that Trump invoked in March, allows the government to deport “alien enemies”. He has used that law to deport people his administration says are members of the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua, without immigration court hearings. The Trump administration has deported hundreds of people under the law.

However, the US Supreme Court ruled against the administration on April 7, saying it must give immigrants notice that they will be deported under the Alien Enemies Act, and give them “reasonable time” to challenge the deportation in court.

Although expedited removal and the Alien Enemies Act limit people’s due process protections, they do not eliminate them. “There are no exceptions to due process,” Bush-Joseph said.

Additionally, noncitizens who are charged with crimes receive the same due process protections as US citizens in criminal court, Somin said.

“All of the protections of the Bill of Rights apply [in criminal court],” Somin said. “There has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He or she is entitled to a jury trial, rights against self-incrimination, right to counsel and so on.”

Why are immigrants’ due process rights making headlines now?

The Trump administration faces several court cases dealing with deportations and immigrants’ due process rights. They include challenges over Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act and the government’s mistaken deportation of a Salvadoran man.

Administration officials have criticised judges and rejected immigrants’ due process protections.

“Due process guarantees the rights of a criminal defendant facing prosecution, not an illegal alien facing deportation,” White House adviser Stephen Miller posted on X on May 5.

The Trump administration’s comments about due process are centred on his promise to carry out the largest deportation operation in US history. The administration’s current deportation pace is below its goal of one million people each year, the Migration Policy Institute said in an April 24 analysis.

Nayna Gupta, policy director of the immigrant rights advocacy group American Immigration Council, said the Trump administration is attempting to “get around those obstacles and those requirements” of due process “just to meet some target [deportation] number”.

To reach Trump’s goal of one million deportations annually, the administration would need to deport people who have lived in the US  for years and have no criminal convictions (whom past administrations have not prioritised for deportation).

Past presidents were also required to uphold noncitizens’ due process rights, but deportation processes moved more quickly under administrations that focused on people who had recently crossed the border illegally, Bush-Joseph said. That option is more limited for the Trump administration because undocumented immigration has reached historic lows under Trump.

Trump is correct that deporting millions of people living in the US without legal documents would require millions of court cases, Tara Watson, director of the Centre for Economic Security and Opportunity at the Brookings Institution, said. That has long been the case.

Millions of immigration court cases are backlogged. And the Trump administration has fired several immigration judges who would hear these cases.

The administration’s goal for mass deportation does not change due process rules and standards.

“It is true that due process slows down the machinery of deportation, but due process is also what separates democracies from dictatorships,” Watson said.

Our ruling

Trump said, “If people come into our country without documents, there’s a different standard [for due process].”

All people in the US, regardless of their immigration status, have due process rights, based on the US Constitution and decades of court decisions. That applies whether they entered the US legally or without any documents.

For noncitizens, people’s due process protections vary based on their legal status or how long they have been in the US. Legal experts say, despite due process variations, there are no exceptions to due process requirements for immigrants.

Israel kills 13, including children, amid dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza

The Israeli military has killed at least 13 Palestinians, including several children and women, in Gaza as it continues to starve the besieged enclave.

Among the victims since dawn on Sunday were three Palestinians killed in a drone strike on a vehicle and two killed in a bombing near residential towers located west of Khan Younis in southern Gaza.

Another two people were killed in artillery shelling of a home in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City in the north while the body of a man was recovered near the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza after Israeli warplanes bombed the area a day earlier.

The Israeli military also attacked the Islamic University building in Khan Younis.

The latest killings in the daily Israeli bombardment of Gaza came as the enclave has seen no food, water, medicine or fuel enter the territory for 70 days due to Israel’s blockade.

The 2.3 million residents of Gaza are surviving on fast-dwindling supplies and charity kitchens, which have been gradually forced to shut down as they run out of food and hunger spreads.

The United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) warned on Sunday that the longer the blockade continues, the more irreversible harm is being done to Palestinians.

“UNRWA has thousands of trucks ready to enter and our teams in Gaza are ready to scale up the delivery,” the organisation said.

Hamas said in a statement on Sunday that Israel is committing a “complex crime”.

Israel’s security cabinet this month approved a plan to fully occupy the Gaza Strip and force another mass displacement of Palestinians.

Israel has also proposed taking over any future humanitarian aid distribution, which would, it said, involve creating designated military zones.

The Humanitarian Country Team, a forum that includes UN agencies, warned that the plan is dangerous and would “contravene fundamental humanitarian principles and appears designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic – as part of a military strategy”.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said on Sunday that the country would accept a new US mechanism that would start delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza.

A group of American security contractors, former military officers and humanitarian aid officials is proposing to take over the distribution of food and other supplies in Gaza based on plans similar to those designed by Israel.

The plan has been criticised for bypassing the UN and aid groups with expertise in aid delivery and creating only four distribution points that would force a large number of Palestinians to travel to southern Gaza.

According to the latest figures by Gaza’s Ministry of Health on Sunday, at least 52,829 Palestinians have been confirmed killed and 119,554 wounded by Israeli military attacks since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attacks on southern Israel, which killed an estimated 1,139 people and resulted in more than 200 people taken captive into Gaza.

Pope Leo XIV called for an immediate ceasefire, entry of humanitarian aid and release of all those held in Gaza during his first Sunday blessing since his election as pontiff.

Israel to pay soldiers more before Gaza expansion

The Israeli military planned to intensify its ground occupation of Gaza on Sunday, pulling the Paratroopers Brigade back from its incursions into Syria to be redeployed to Gaza.

The paratroopers have been operating in the occupied Golan Heights and inside Syria since the fall of President Bashar al-Assad in December.

Israel withdrew the Nahal Brigade from the occupied West Bank – which has also been under assault for months – in its intended and self-proclaimed push to “conquer” Gaza.

But thousands of Israeli reservists and other members of the Israeli military and security agencies, along with thousands of Israelis demonstrating in the streets, have been calling for an end to the war to bring back all captives.

To address the growing dissatisfaction among soldiers, the Israeli government on Sunday approved a “comprehensive benefit plan” for reservists worth about 3 billion shekels ($838m) that is slated to include a series of economic and social benefits.

The army welcomed the plan approved by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying in a statement that it is a reflection of soldiers’ “exceptional contribution” to Israeli society.

Is Pope Leo XIV, the first US-born pontiff, a registered Republican?

By 

Hours after Robert Prevost became the first United States-born pontiff on May 8, social media discussions in the US speculated whether Pope Leo XIV, as he is known after the election, was a “registered Republican”.

“SCOOP: Our Turning Point Action team pulled the voting history for Pope Leo XIV,” conservative influencer Charlie Kirk wrote on social media platform X on May 8. “He’s a registered Republican who has voted in Republican primaries when not living abroad. Our data shows he’s a strong Republican, and he’s pro-life.”

Many other X posts called Prevost a “registered Republican”.

Prevost, 69, is a registered voter in Will County, Illinois, and has cast ballots there over the past 13 years. In Illinois, voters do not register by party affiliation. But they declare a party when voting in a primary, according to an April video by the Illinois State Board of Elections.

“However, you are not tied down or formally registered to this party and are free to vote for another party at a subsequent election,” the video says.

The Illinois voter registration application does not ask people to provide a party affiliation.

The Will County clerk’s office sent PolitiFact Prevost’s voter information, which lists his party affiliation as “undeclared”. It shows that he voted in the 2012, 2014 and 2016 Republican primaries. He voted absentee in the 2024 general election, with an undeclared party affiliation.

The viral screenshots Kirk and others shared on X are from L2, a paywalled database that aggregates consumer and voter data. L2’s profile of Prevost lists “Republican” in its “party” field.

It is unclear how L2 determines a party affiliation for people who live in states such as Illinois, where this information is not included in voter registration. L2 did not respond to PolitiFact’s request for comment.

Born in 1955, Prevost grew up in Dolton, Illinois, a Chicago suburb. He was ordained as a priest in 1982, then moved to Peru, where he lived from 1988 through 1998. In 1999, he returned to Chicago to serve as the prior provincial of the Augustinian province of “Mother of Good Counsel”, which covers the Midwest and Canada.

Prevost’s voter file lists his address to a house owned by his brother, John Prevost. We were unable to determine Robert Prevost’s address or where he was registered to vote before 2012. In 2014, he returned to Peru and served as the bishop of Chiclayo from 2015 to 2023. He then moved to Rome, where he has lived since.

US citizens who live overseas and meet certain criteria can vote absentee while abroad.

We contacted the clerk’s office in Cook County, Illinois, where Chicago is located, to ask whether Prevost has a voter file in the county. The clerk’s office directed us to submit a Freedom of Information Act request for that information; we did so, but did not receive an immediate response.

Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, chair of religious studies and political science professor at Northwestern University in the Chicago suburbs, said Prevost’s voting history does not tell the public “much about his views or positions other than that in that particular primary he was inclined toward one or more of the Republican candidates”.

Our ruling

X posts said Prevost is a “registered Republican”.

Prevost is registered to vote in Illinois, where voters do not register with a party affiliation. However, they declare a party affiliation when voting in a primary. County records show Prevost voted in three Republican primaries from 2012 through 2016, the most recent records we obtained.

Still, the Illinois State Board of Elections says when voters participate in primaries, they are not formally registered to a party.

No one is registered by party affiliation in Illinois, and evidence is scant about Prevost’s voting history over his lifetime.

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts. We rate it Mostly False.

What percentage of US toys and Christmas goods are imported from China?

By 

Whether you are gift-wrapping a toy car or hanging Christmas ornaments, there is a strong chance you are handling products made in a Chinese factory.

The day after President Donald Trump spoke in an interview about his tariff policies that girls in the United States do not need to “have 30 dolls”, some political commentators discussed China’s influence over the US toy market. The US currently has a 145 percent tariff on goods from China.

“China makes 80 percent of all toys sold in this country and 90 percent of all Christmas goods sold in this country,” former New York Times columnist Charles Blow said during a May 5 appearance on CNN’s News Night with Abby Phillip. “We have a lot of leverage with China. The Christmas and the doll industry is not one of them.”

Blow told PolitiFact his source was an April 29 report in The New York Times. It said, “Factories in China produce nearly 80 percent of all toys and 90 percent of Christmas goods sold in America.”

Data shows those figures are rounded up, but not far off.

Blow’s statement is “directionally accurate but slightly overstated on toys”, said Gilberto Garcia-Vazquez, chief economist at Datawheel, which operates an online economic data platform called the Observatory of Economic Complexity.

He said out of $41bn worth of imports in toys, games and sports equipment in 2024 by the US, $30bn, or about 73 percent, was manufactured in China.

“If you include domestic production – small but non-negligible – China likely supplies closer to 72 percent of toys actually sold in the US, not 80 percent,” Garcia-Vazquez said. The Observatory of Economic Complexity uses data sources from “statistical offices, open data portals or custom union websites”.

Claire Huber, spokesperson for the US International Trade Commission (USITC), provided PolitiFact with an analysis of 2024 data that showed 78.3 percent of toy imports and 85 percent of Christmas-related imports, such as lights, trees and decorations, are manufactured in China. The toy category includes dolls, wheeled toys and scale models.

The data was compiled using the USITC’s DataWeb, which cites statistics published by the US Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau, accessed on May 9.

Garcia-Vazquez also analysed 2024 data for Christmas goods and said 90 percent of US imports in that category came from China.

He said Christmas lights are an exception because “Cambodia has recently overtaken China as the top source”.

The New York Times published an April 27 report that showed 76 percent of “toys and puzzles” and 87 percent of “Christmas decorations” come from China. Bloomberg, citing the trade organisation Toy Association, said “roughly 80 percent of toys sold in the US are made in China”.

India tried to project strength but ended up showing weakness

On May 10, United States President Donald Trump announced a “full and immediate” ceasefire between India and Pakistan brokered by his administration. US media reported that, alarmed by intelligence signalling further escalation, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles drove urgent mediation. Vance warned Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi of catastrophic risks and encouraged direct talks between India and Pakistan.

The announcement of the ceasefire was received across the world with a sigh of relief. The spectre of a nuclear exchange, which according to one 2019 study could kill up to 125 million people in less than a week, had fuelled regional anxiety and spurred the US diplomatic frenzy.

In India, however, Trump’s announcement was seen differently in some quarters. Former Indian army chief Ved Prakash Malik posted on X: “Ceasefire 10 May 25: We have left India’s future history to ask what politico-strategic advantages, if any, were gained after its kinetic and non-kinetic actions.” MP Asaduddin Owaisi wrote on the same platform: “I wish our PM @narendramodi had announced the ceasefire rather than the President of a foreign country. We have always been opposed to third party intervention since Simla (1972). Why have we now accepted it? I hope the Kashmir issue will not be internationalised, as it is our internal matter.”

The latter comment likely refers to Trump’s statement that he is willing to work with India and Pakistan “to see if, after a ‘thousand years,’ a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir”.

The ceasefire announcement by the US president appears to have been perceived by some in India as a sign of the Modi government’s retreat under US pressure while his offer to mediate on Kashmir is being seen as an indication that India’s longstanding rejection of third-party intervention is being undermined.

In South Asian geopolitics, perception often outpaces reality – until reality bites. India has long projected regional dominance, bolstered by economic growth and nuclear might. Yet its actions in the aftermath of the April 22 massacre carried out by the Resistance Front (TRF) in Kashmir exposed its vulnerabilities. Intended to assert strength, India’s response faltered, boosting Pakistan’s regional standing and leaving Modi’s government diplomatically weakened.

On May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor to dismantle terrorist bases linked to groups like the TRF, which, it claims, is supported by Pakistan. Backed by French-made Rafale jets, the operation sought to project Modi’s strongman image amid domestic outrage. Yet its success was contested. Pakistan reported civilian casualties, including children, while India insisted only terrorist sites were hit.

Pakistan’s air force scrambled its own jets to deflect the attack and claimed it downed five Indian jets, including three Rafales. Two US officials confirmed to the Reuters news agency that a Chinese-made J-10 jet shot down at least two Indian planes, aided by Chinese intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support. India has not acknowledged any losses.

Indian media initially claimed devastating strikes on Pakistani cities, including Karachi’s seaport, but these reports, which were clearly part of propaganda efforts, were proven false.

On May 9, India launched missile attacks on Pakistani bases, including one near Islamabad, Pakistan claimed. The Pakistani army retaliated with short-range missile and drone strikes targeting Indian airbases at Udhampur, Pathankot, Adampur and Bhuj. Indian air force officer Vyomika Singh reported Pakistani drones and munitions hit civilian and military targets.

India’s image as a regional hegemon frayed. The Indian government clearly overestimated its Rafale jets and underestimated Pakistan’s Chinese-backed ISR systems, which enhanced battlefield precision.

China’s military support for Pakistan has increased significantly in recent years. Since 2020, it has accounted for 81 percent of Islamabad’s military imports.

For years, some Indian defence analysts warned that India’s military was unprepared for a China-supported Pakistan, given its limited US or Russian backing for its high-risk Kashmir gamble. Others criticised the government’s foreign policy for encouraging China-Pakistan rapprochement. Their warnings remained unheeded in New Delhi.

The events of the past few days exposed India’s strategic limits, replacing ambiguity with global scrutiny. The kneejerk reaction in New Delhi may be to increase the defence budget and deepen even further the militarisation of Kashmir.

As the Indian government plans its next steps, it should do well to consider that the status quo of shadow war and the cycle of covert aggression fuelling unrest is untenable. Both nations’ intelligence agencies have long backed proxies, driving instability from Kashmir to Afghanistan.

The path forward rests on New Delhi and Islamabad making wise choices. Restraint, not rhetoric, should shape policies moving forward. Failure to do so risks geopolitical turmoil, economic stagnation and hardship for millions. Home to a quarter of the world’s poorest people and more than 350 million illiterate adults, India and Pakistan cannot afford prolonged strife. Continued tensions could derail India’s growth and cripple Pakistan’s fragile economy, dwarfing any tactical gains.