The Trump administration wasted no time pushing back after a Reagan-appointed federal judge used a Boston courtroom to unload a blistering — and frankly revealing — attack on President Donald Trump and his senior officials over efforts to deport certain noncitizen, pro-Palestinian activists embedded in elite university campuses.
U.S. District Judge William G. Young didn’t just rule from the bench Thursday — he lectured. During a remedies hearing, Young accused the Trump administration of acting “illegally,” “intentionally,” and even labeled the president “authoritarian” for enforcing immigration laws against noncitizens accused by the administration of engaging in pro-Hamas activity. Strong words, especially from a judge who seemed less interested in remedies and more interested in cable-news audition tape.
The White House quickly responded. Spokesperson Anna Kelly called it “bizarre” that a sitting judge would openly broadcast what looked like “left-wing activism” against a democratically elected president. That’s a polite way of saying the quiet part out loud.
A senior DHS official echoed the criticism, blasting Young’s remarks as wildly inappropriate. And it’s not hard to see why. Instead of narrowly addressing the legal questions at hand, the judge used the hearing to scold President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem — accusing them of conspiring to violate the First Amendment. Apparently, enforcing immigration law against noncitizens is now a constitutional crisis.
Young went even further, declaring it “breathtaking” that cabinet secretaries would dare carry out the president’s agenda, claiming they failed their sworn duty to the Constitution. One might wonder whether the judge has confused disagreement with illegality — or law with personal politics.
The judge reserved his sharpest rhetoric for Trump himself, asserting that the president believes everyone in the executive branch must “toe the line,” which Young framed as evidence of authoritarianism. Interestingly, he insisted he didn’t mean the term pejoratively — which is usually what people say right before they absolutely mean it that way.
Despite all the theatrics, Young ultimately conceded he would not grant the sweeping injunction sought by the plaintiffs. Instead, he plans to issue a narrower order next week, outlining when immigration status changes may occur. He also signaled he would release sensitive materials over the administration’s objections — another move raising eyebrows.
Administration lawyers made clear the deportation effort is part of a broader fight against antisemitism on college campuses, arguing the individuals involved were aligned with Hamas. That context, however, didn’t seem to slow the judge’s rhetorical momentum.
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin summed up the administration’s position bluntly and accurately: the United States is under no obligation to admit or retain foreign nationals who sympathize with terrorist groups. That’s not authoritarianism — that’s sovereignty.
At the end of the day, courts may argue over process, but the Trump administration remains focused on enforcing the law, protecting Americans, and confronting extremism where it hides — even when it wears an academic badge. And despite the noise, that commitment isn’t changing anytime soon.
