Book Says White House Considered Suspending Habeas Corpus for Undocumented Immigrants

The White House weighed suspending habeas corpus rights for certain undocumented immigrants, according to a new book by two New York Times reporters, a claim that would, if implemented, have directly altered the legal pathway for detainees to contest the legality of their confinement. The book, "Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump," is the subject of a report published by The Hill on June 15, 2026.

Habeas corpus is the legal mechanism that allows a person detained by the government to seek judicial review of the detention. Under U.S. constitutional doctrine, suspending that right is tightly constrained. The book’s reported account describes White House consideration of suspending habeas corpus rights in an immigration detention context, according to The Hill’s summary of the book’s new details.

The book is described by The Hill as written from information gathered by the two Times reporters, and the report characterizes the issue as part of internal White House deliberations rather than as a public action taken. The Hill’s reporting does not indicate that a formal suspension was enacted or that any executive order or other official directive had been issued as a result of the discussions.

White House officials have not been identified in the The Hill report by name in connection with the deliberations, and it is also not clear from the account whether any specific immigration detention categories were being discussed beyond undocumented immigrants generally. The report frames the discussion as an option weighed by the White House last year, according to the book.

Because habeas corpus petitions are typically filed in federal court, suspending the right would potentially reduce detainees’ ability to obtain expedited judicial scrutiny of detention claims, including challenges tied to due process, statutory authority, or factual disputes. The practical effect of such a move would be felt in federal court litigation brought by detained people and the government’s responses to those filings.

Legal and enforcement processes in immigration custody also depend on the availability of judicial review. If habeas access were limited, immigration enforcement agencies and the courts could face changes in caseload patterns and timelines, while detainees could instead be pushed toward other forms of review that may have different procedural requirements and timelines.

The Hill’s report positions the book as offering a behind-the-scenes look at how the White House considered the constitutional implications of detention challenges. The book’s claims, however, remain unverified in the report by reference to an official record such as an executive order, proclamation, or court ruling. As a result, the key open question for readers is not whether the debate occurred, but what, if anything, the government actually pursued through formal policy channels.