Portrait of Tom Homan
Politician · concept
Wikipedia (opens in new tab)

Tom Homan on Due Process

Limited due process for enemies (strong)

TL;DR

Tom Homan asserts that individuals deemed enemies of the United States have significantly limited due process rights compared to standard procedures.

Key Points

  • He stated that people who are enemies of the United States do not have the same level of due process as in the normal process.

  • He maintained that the removal of a U.S. citizen child to Honduras with her deported mother was permissible because the mother had due process.

  • In January 2026, he was ordered to appear in court to explain why detained immigrants had allegedly been denied due process in Minnesota following a high-profile shooting.

Summary

Tom Homan, in his role as border czar, has directly addressed the concept of due process, particularly in the context of immigration enforcement and removals. His core position indicates a belief that constitutional due process protections are not afforded equally to all individuals within U.S. territory, asserting that those categorized as enemies of the United States do not receive the same level of process as in normal proceedings. He frequently frames this argument around the government's use of the Alien Enemies Act to expel immigrants alleged to be gang members. The statement implies a view that certain conduct or status negates or substantially curtails standard legal requirements.

This stance has been most prominent in discussions surrounding specific, high-profile deportation cases, where his comments suggest that an initial determination of gang affiliation by agents is sufficient to limit the rights of the detainee. Homan has also stated that an illegal entry followed by having a U.S. citizen child does not provide immunity from U.S. laws or serve as a "get out jail free card." Furthermore, he defended the deportation of a U.S. citizen child with her deported mother by arguing the mother exercised a parental right, asserting that the mother herself had due process at taxpayer expense.

Frequently Asked Questions

Tom Homan's position is that due process rights are conditional, particularly for non-citizens. He has explicitly stated that individuals deemed enemies of the United States, often referencing those alleged to be gang members, do not receive the same due process as in standard procedures. He frames this as a necessary distinction based on the individual's alleged status or conduct.

The available information primarily reflects a consistent position where Tom Homan advocates for limiting due process for certain categories of immigrants. His public statements, particularly in contentious deportation cases, suggest a firm, long-held view that standard constitutional rights can be curtailed for those falling under specific enforcement statutes.

Regarding the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, where an individual was mistakenly deported, Homan's focus was on the individual having received a hearing before removal. While the Department of Justice admitted an administrative error led to the removal, Homan's argument centered on the prior proceedings satisfying the 'due process' requirement for that individual.