President Donald Trump's White House considered some of the most aggressive uses of executive power in modern U.S. history during the early months of his second term, according to newly disclosed internal memoranda detailed in the forthcoming book Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.
The documents, written by White House staff secretary Will Scharf in 2025, reveal that senior administration officials debated whether the president could suspend habeas corpus protections for certain immigrants and invoke the Insurrection Act to respond to protests against immigration enforcement operations. While neither proposal was ultimately implemented, the records provide a rare look into internal discussions surrounding the administration's immigration agenda.
At the center of the debate was a broader effort to accelerate deportations after President Trump's return to office following the 2024 election. According to the book, senior adviser Stephen Miller pushed for measures designed to overcome legal obstacles that had slowed immigration enforcement efforts.
The discussion intensified after the Supreme Court allowed the administration to continue using the Alien Enemies Act in deportation cases while preserving migrants' ability to challenge detention through habeas corpus petitions. Administration officials reportedly viewed the ruling as limiting their ability to quickly remove individuals facing deportation.
According to the reported memos, Miller argued that the administration should explore whether an "invasion" declaration at the southern border could justify suspending habeas corpus protections for unauthorized immigrants.
Scharf strongly objected in a confidential memorandum dated April 29, 2025, addressed to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. He wrote that the Constitution permits suspension of habeas corpus only "in cases of rebellion or invasion" and argued that courts have historically viewed Congress-not the president-as the authority responsible for such action.
Scharf further warned that habeas corpus "prevents, in effect, governmental actors from detaining, imprisoning or executing individuals arbitrarily."
The memo reportedly outlined the limited historical use of the constitutional provision. Habeas corpus has been formally suspended only a handful of times in American history, primarily during wartime or armed rebellion. Scharf also referenced Supreme Court rulings that preserved judicial review even in national-security cases.
The book's authors report that Trump publicly hinted at extraordinary legal options during a deportation dispute involving Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. Shortly afterward, Miller told reporters that suspension of habeas corpus was being "actively" examined during what he described as an "invasion."
According to the book, the proposal ultimately stalled amid legal concerns and internal opposition. The administration instead pursued alternative immigration enforcement measures, including changes to detention procedures affecting immigrants arrested inside the United States.
The same book also describes internal discussions regarding the Insurrection Act, a federal law that allows presidents to deploy military forces under limited circumstances to restore order. Following protests linked to immigration raids, Vice President JD Vance and Miller reportedly advocated exploring the law's use to deter demonstrations and disruptions.
Scharf again expressed reservations. In a separate memorandum cited by the authors, he described the Insurrection Act as a "break-the-glass exception" intended for extraordinary emergencies rather than political unrest. Other officials, including White House counsel David Warrington and Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair, reportedly questioned the practical benefits of invoking the law.
According to the book, Blair asked during one meeting: "What does the Insurrection Act give us that we don't already have."
The proposal was never adopted. Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, defended the internal deliberations, saying administration officials "often have conversations about many different lawful options to implement the president's agenda with the president always being the ultimate decider."
