Connect with us

Business

Column: Meet the architect of Trump's attack on birthright citizenship, a California lawyer facing disbarment

Published

on

Column: Meet the architect of Trump's attack on birthright citizenship, a California lawyer facing disbarment

Donald Trump’s flurry of first-day executive orders aimed at remaking American government in his image may have Americans’ heads spinning, but one stands out from the rest for its sheer audacity.

That’s the order to rescind “birthright citizenship,” which is constitutionally granted to almost all children born within the U.S. borders.

Opposition to birthright citizenship emerged almost immediately with its enactment as part of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, and has waxed and waned in parallel with political controversies over immigration.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

— U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment

Advertisement

But its emergence as a core issue for Trump owes much to the work of a California lawyer. He’s John C. Eastman, a longtime Trump advisor who is facing disbarment proceedings due to his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Eastman has advocated a reconsideration of birthright citizenship — or as I wrote in 2020, “flogging this dead horse” — for years. He has consistently been in the minority among legal authorities on the topic.

Still, he maintains, as he did in a recent conversation with me, that “the leading scholars on this issue all agree with me.”

He added: “I’ve probably been most prominent more recently in articulating that position.” He declined to say if he had consulted with the Trump campaign or transition team before Trump issued the executive order.

Advertisement

Eastman’s criticism of birthright citizenship unfurled mostly through legal treatises and in conservative publications until 2020, when an article he wrote for Newsweek made him the public face of the issue.

The article, which appeared the day after Joe Biden picked Kamala Harris as his 2020 running mate, questioned whether Harris was eligible for the office of president (or by extension vice president) because she didn’t meet the constitutional requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.”

“Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Harris’ birth in 1964,” Eastman wrote. “That … makes her not a ‘natural born citizen.’”

Within days, Eastman’s argument was taken up by Trump, who cited him as a “very highly qualified and very talented lawyer.”

Newsweek, however, promptly disavowed Eastman’s article. In an editor’s note, the magazine tried to rebut objections that it had been tied in with the “birther” claims that Barack Obama had not been born in the U.S. Rather, it said, the article was merely airing a legitimate legal debate. Two days later, it posted a second note, in which it stated that “this op-ed is being used by some as a tool to perpetuate racism and xenophobia. We apologize. … We entirely failed to anticipate the ways in which the essay would be interpreted, distorted and weaponized.”

Advertisement

Before examining the persistence of attacks on birthright citizenship, a few words about Eastman. The former dean and law professor at the Fowler School of Law of Orange County-based Chapman University has seen his activities as a lawyer for Trump lead his career down a dark hole.

Eastman played an important role in promoting Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him, and addressed the crowd at Trump’s Washington rally on Jan. 6, 2021, that led to the attack on the Capitol that day.

A week after that rally, Eastman and Chapman reached an agreement under which he agreed to retire from the university, effective immediately.

In January 2023, the State Bar of California launched disbarment proceedings against Eastman, citing his efforts to promote Trump’s unfounded claim that the election was stolen. After a more than monthlong trial in the state bar court, in a March 27, 2024, ruling, Bar Judge Yvette Roland found Eastman culpable on 10 of the 11 state bar charges and recommended his disbarment.

Eastman “made multiple false and misleading statements in his professional capacity as attorney for President Trump in court filings and other written statements,” Roland ruled.

Advertisement

Under state bar rules, as long as Roland’s disbarment recommendation stands, Eastman is ineligible to practice law in California. His license was also suspended by the Washington, D.C., bar. He is also facing felony charges in Georgia and Arizona connected with the 2020 election; both cases, in which Eastman has pleaded not guilty, are pending. None of these cases involve the birthright issue.

Eastman is still fighting disbarment, based in part on his position that his actions on Trump’s behalf are protected by his 1st Amendment free-speech rights and that his claims about the election being stolen weren’t knowingly false. Oral arguments before the state bar court are scheduled for March 19. If the disbarment recommendation stands, the final decision will be made by the state Supreme Court.

That brings us back to the birthright issue. The 14th Amendment was enacted as a direct response to the Supreme Court’s egregious 1857 Dred Scott decision, which held that persons of African descent, such as enslaved people and formerly enslaved people, could not be considered citizens under the Constitution.

In its very first line, the amendment states forthrightly, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Legalistic debate over birthright tends to parse the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Advertisement

Most legal scholars — and courts that have considered the issue — accept the prevailing conclusion that it was meant to exclude chiefly children of foreign diplomats and ministers and those of occupying foreign armies, who remain under the jurisdiction of their own countries.

(Native American tribes were also excluded initially on the reasoning that the tribes claimed sovereign authority, but they were brought under the amendment’s protection in 1924.)

Some critics argue that the amendment could not have bestowed citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants because “illegal immigration” didn’t exist in 1868, as the U.S. then had no immigration restrictions.

That’s a dubious claim, constitutional scholar Garrett Epps has written. “‘Illegal aliens’ are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of both state and federal legal systems. They can be, and are every day, arrested, prosecuted and sentenced (even to death) in American courts,” and can be sued in civil courts.

What Trump could do about birthright citizenship is unclear. Repealing the 14th Amendment would require a new constitutional amendment, a lengthy and complicated process.

Advertisement

Some experts have said that Congress could act to redefine “jurisdiction,” but even a leading expert on the topic, Rogers M. Smith of the University of Pennsylvania, has acknowledged being in the “minority of scholars who think the Congress can act” to exclude undocumented immigrants’ children.

Trump might be hoping that the current Supreme Court majority, which has disdained its own precedents, would scrap this one — though whether it would discard a precedent that has stood for more than a century is an imponderable.

The Supreme Court’s support of a broad definition of birthright citizenship dates to 1898, in a ruling involving Wong Kim Ark, whose citizenship as the U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants was challenged because his parents had had no right to become citizens themselves. The court rejected the challenge.

In a 1982 case, all nine justices accepted the view that undocumented immigrants, “even after their illegal entry” to the U.S., are covered by the 14th Amendment.

A remarkable feature of birthright citizenship is that the broadest definition is supported not only by progressives, but conservatives. Newsweek published a rebuttal to Eastman’s article in 2020 by conservative UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. At the same time, the libertarian Cato Institute attacked Eastman’s claims head-on. And on Inauguration Day, Cato’s director of immigration studies, David J. Bier, issued a series of broadsides against Trump’s executive order, calling it a “blatantly unconstitutional… attack on American tradition, the rule of law, the Constitution, and indeed Americans themselves.”

Advertisement

In truth, the core issue of birthright citizenship isn’t constitutional. It’s political, and its politics are acrid in the extreme. The issue is inextricably bound up with racism and the notion of America as a beacon of white supremacy.

That has been the one constant in the opposition to birthright citizenship since the enactment of the 14th Amendment, legal scholar Rachel E. Rosenbloom has observed, noting that opposition is typically couched “in a highly racialized language of crisis and invasion.”

A proponent of a proposed 2009 California ballot initiative aimed at cutting off public benefits for undocumented immigrants, for example, asserted that “illegals and their children” were engaged in “invasion by birth canal.” (The measure didn’t make it onto the ballot.)

Trump has repeatedly employed the rhetoric of xenophobia and invasion to justify his attacks on immigrants. “They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” he said at a rally in 2023, referring to immigrants “from Africa, from Asia, all over the world. They’re pouring into our country.”

Opposition to birthright citizenship has tended to surge alongside concerns about immigration, especially when the latter has had a racist component. The Wong Kim Ark case was designed as a test of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882; the 1982 case arose as a challenge to a Texas law that denied funding for the K-12 education of undocumented immigrant children. (The Supreme Court struck down the law.)

Advertisement

Eastman told me in 2020 that he was troubled by what he called the “false charge” that he questioned birthright citizenship merely “because Kamala Harris is Black.” He said then that he had been studying and writing about so-called birthright citizenship for nearly 20 years “in all sorts of contexts,” not merely Black politicians.

Notwithstanding Eastman’s disavowal of racist intent, one can’t attribute the same innocence to Trump and his immigration policy team. In his Jan. 20 executive order on border security, he again invoked “the language of crisis and invasion” — “Over the last 4 years,” the order states, “the United States has endured a large-scale invasion at an unprecedented level.”

Truly, the ideological basis of the attack on birthright citizenship has barely changed in 127 years.

Advertisement

Business

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Published

on

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Grok, the chatbot of Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, published sexualized images of children as its guardrails seem to have failed when it was prompted with vile user requests.

Users used prompts such as “put her in a bikini” under pictures of real people on X to get Grok to generate nonconsensual images of them in inappropriate attire. The morphed images created on Grok’s account are posted publicly on X, Musk’s social media platform.

The AI complied with requests to morph images of minors even though that is a violation of its own acceptable use policy.

“There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing, like the example you referenced,” Grok responded to a user on X. “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely.”

xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Its chatbot posted an apology.

“I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt,” said a post on Grok’s profile. “This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.”

The government of India notified X that it risked losing legal immunity if the company did not submit a report within 72 hours on the actions taken to stop the generation and distribution of obscene, nonconsensual images targeting women.

Critics have accused xAI of allowing AI-enabled harassment, and were shocked and angered by the existence of a feature for seamless AI manipulation and undressing requests.

“How is this not illegal?” journalist Samantha Smith posted on X, decrying the creation of her own nonconsensual sexualized photo.

Advertisement

Musk’s xAI has positioned Grok as an “anti-woke” chatbot that is programmed to be more open and edgy than competing chatbots such as ChatGPT.

In May, Grok posted about “white genocide,” repeating conspiracy theories of Black South Africans persecuting the white minority, in response to an unrelated question.

In June, the company apologized when Grok posted a series of antisemitic remarks praising Adolf Hitler.

Companies such as Google and OpenAI, which also operate AI image generators, have much more restrictive guidelines around content.

The proliferation of nonconsensual deepfake imagery has coincided with broad AI adoption, with a 400% increase in AI child sexual abuse imagery in the first half of 2025, according to Internet Watch Foundation.

Advertisement

xAI introduced “Spicy Mode” in its image and video generation tool in August for verified adult subscribers to create sensual content.

Some adult-content creators on X prompted Grok to generate sexualized images to market themselves, kickstarting an internet trend a few days ago, according to Copyleaks, an AI text and image detection company.

The testing of the limits of Grok devolved into a free-for-all as users asked it to create sexualized images of celebrities and others.

xAI is reportedly valued at more than $200 billion, and has been investing billions of dollars to build the largest data center in the world to power its AI applications.

However, Grok’s capabilities still lag competing AI models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, that have amassed more users, while Grok has turned to sexual AI companions and risque chats to boost growth.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

Published

on

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

John and Theresa Anderson meandered through the sprawling Ralph Lauren clothing store on Rodeo Drive, shopping for holiday gifts.

They emerged carrying boxy blue bags. John scored quarter-zip sweaters for himself and his father-in-law, and his wife splurged on a tweed jacket for Christmas Day.

“I’m going for quality over quantity this year,” said John, an apparel company executive and Palos Verdes Estates resident.

They strolled through the world-famous Beverly Hills shopping mecca, where there was little evidence of any big sales.

John Anderson holds his shopping bags from Ralph Lauren and Gucci at Rodeo Drive.

Advertisement

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

One mile away, shoppers at a Ralphs grocery store in West Hollywood were hunting for bargains. The chain’s website has been advertising discounts on a wide variety of products, including wine and wrapping paper.

Massi Gharibian was there looking for cream cheese and ways to save money.

“I’m buying less this year,” she said. “Everything is expensive.”

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

The tale of two Ralphs shows how Americans are experiencing radically different realities this holiday season. It represents the country’s K-shaped economy — the growing divide between those who are affluent and those trying to stretch their budgets.

Some Los Angeles residents are tightening their belts and prioritizing necessities such as groceries. Others are frequenting pricey stores such as Ralph Lauren, where doormen hand out hot chocolate and a cashmere-silk necktie sells for $250.

Advertisement
People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the K-shaped economy, high-income households sit on the upward arm of the “K,” benefiting from rising pay as well as the value of their stock and property holdings. At the same time, lower-income families occupy the downward stroke, squeezed by inflation and lackluster income gains.

The model captures the country’s contradictions. Growth looks healthy on paper, yet hiring has slowed and unemployment is edging higher. Investment is booming in artificial intelligence data centers, while factories cut jobs and home sales stall.

The divide is most visible in affordability. Inflation remains a far heavier burden for households lower on the income distribution, a frustration that has spilled into politics. Voters are angry about expensive rents, groceries and imported goods.

Advertisement

“People in lower incomes are becoming more and more conservative in their spending patterns, and people in the upper incomes are actually driving spending and spending more,” said Kevin Klowden, an executive director at the Milken Institute, an economic think tank.

“Inflationary pressures have been much higher on lower- and middle-income people, and that has been adding up,” he said.

According to a Bank of America report released this month, higher-income employees saw their after-tax wages grow 4% from last year, while lower-income groups saw a jump of just 1.4%. Higher-income households also increased their spending year over year by 2.6%, while lower-income groups increased spending by 0.6%.

The executives at the companies behind the two Ralphs say they are seeing the trend nationwide.

Ralph Lauren reported better-than-expected quarterly sales last month and raised its forecasts, while Kroger, the grocery giant that owns Ralphs and Food 4 Less, said it sometimes struggles to attract cash-strapped customers.

Advertisement

“We’re seeing a split across income groups,” interim Kroger Chief Executive Ron Sargent said on a company earnings call early this month. “Middle-income customers are feeling increased pressure. They’re making smaller, more frequent trips to manage budgets, and they’re cutting back on discretionary purchases.”

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

Kroger lowered the top end of its full-year sales forecast after reporting mixed third-quarter earnings this month.

On a Ralph Lauren earnings call last month, CEO Patrice Louvet said its brand has benefited from targeting wealthy customers and avoiding discounts.

Advertisement

“Demand remains healthy, and our core consumer is resilient,” Louvet said, “especially as we continue … to shift our recruiting towards more full-price, less price-sensitive, higher-basket-size new customers.”

Investors have noticed the split as well.

The stock charts of the companies behind the two Ralphs also resemble a K. Shares of Ralph Lauren have jumped 37% in the last six months, while Kroger shares have fallen 13%.

To attract increasingly discerning consumers, Kroger has offered a precooked holiday meal for eight of turkey or ham, stuffing, green bean casserole, sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, cranberry and gravy for about $11 a person.

“Stretch your holiday dollars!” said the company’s weekly newspaper advertisement.

Advertisement
Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the Ralph Lauren on Rodeo Drive, sunglasses and polo shirts were displayed without discounts. Twinkling lights adorned trees in the store’s entryway and employees offered shoppers free cookies for the holidays.

Ralph Lauren and other luxury stores are taking the opposite approach to retailers selling basics to the middle class.

They are boosting profits from sales of full-priced items. Stores that cater to high-end customers don’t offer promotions as frequently, Klowden of the Milken Institute said.

Advertisement

“When the luxury stores are having sales, that’s usually a larger structural symptom of how they’re doing,” he said. “They don’t need to be having sales right now.”

Jerry Nickelsburg, faculty director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, said upper-income earners are less affected by inflation that has driven up the price of everyday goods, and are less likely to hunt for bargains.

“The low end of the income distribution is being squeezed by inflation and is consuming less,” he said. “The upper end of the income distribution has increasing wealth and increasing income, and so they are less affected, if affected at all.”

The Andersons on Rodeo Drive also picked up presents at Gucci and Dior.

“We’re spending around the same as last year,” John Anderson said.

Advertisement

At Ralphs, Beverly Grove resident Mel, who didn’t want to share her last name, said the grocery store needs to go further for its consumers.

“I am 100% trying to spend less this year,” she said.

Continue Reading

Business

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Published

on

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Instacart will stop using artificial intelligence to experiment with product pricing after a report showed that customers on the platform were paying different prices for the same items.

The report, published this month by Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative, found that Instacart sometimes offered as many as five different prices for the same item at the same store and on the same day.

In a blog post Monday, Instacart said it was ending the practice effective immediately.

“We understand that the tests we ran with a small number of retail partners that resulted in different prices for the same item at the same store missed the mark for some customers,” the company said. “At a time when families are working exceptionally hard to stretch every grocery dollar, those tests raised concerns.”

Shoppers purchasing the same items from the same store on the same day will now see identical prices, the blog post said.

Advertisement

Instacart’s retail partners will still set product prices and may charge different prices across stores.

The report, which followed more than 400 shoppers in four cities, found that the average difference between the highest and lowest prices for the same item was 13%. Some participants in the study saw prices that were 23% higher than those offered to other shoppers.

At a Safeway supermarket in Washington, D.C., a dozen Lucerne eggs sold for $3.99, $4.28, $4.59, $4.69 and $4.79 on Instacart, depending on the shopper, the study showed.

At a Safeway in Seattle, a box of 10 Clif Chocolate Chip Energy bars sold for $19.43, $19.99 and $21.99 on Instacart.

The study found that an individual shopper on Instacart could theoretically spend up to $1,200 more on groceries in one year if they had to deal with the price differences observed in the pricing experiments.

Advertisement

The price experimentation was part of a program that Instacart advertised to retailers as a way to maximize revenue.

Instacart probably began adjusting prices in 2022, when the platform acquired the artificial intelligence company Eversight, whose software powers the experiments.

Instacart claimed that the Eversight experimentation would be negligible to consumers but could increase store revenue by up to 3%.

“Advances in AI enable experiments to be automatically designed, deployed, and evaluated, making it possible to rapidly test and analyze millions of price permutations across your physical and digital store network,” Instacart marketing materials said online.

The company said the price chranges were not dynamic pricing, the practice used by airlines and ride-hailing services to charge more when demand surges.
The price changes also were not based on shoppers’ personal information such as income, the company said.

Advertisement

“American grocery shoppers aren’t guinea pigs, and they should be able to expect a fair price when they’re shopping,” Lindsey Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, said in an interview this month.

Shares of Instacart fell 2% on Monday, closing at $45.02.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending