Business
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.)
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.
Business
How Google’s 32-million mosquito project could change California’s battle against dengue
Google took internet searches to the next level. Could it do the same for mosquito control?
The Silicon Valley-based tech giant is seeking to release up to 64 million sterilized male mosquitoes in California and Florida over two years, according to a notice in the Federal Register. It’s part of an ambitious effort to curb the diseases the insects spread.
Google says it can harness technology to optimize a concept that’s been around for decades, but hasn’t been successfully scaled with mosquitoes to rein in disease.
For example, the process often involves separating the insects by sex to isolate the males. Currently, that’s done manually and can be time consuming. Google says it’s “developing new technologies that combine sensors, algorithms and novel engineering to take advantage of unique aspects of mosquito biology to quickly and accurately sort males from females.”
The company also says it’s building software and monitoring tools to guide releases of sterile males, and its scientists and engineers are creating sensors, traps and software to decide which areas need to be treated and treated again.
-
Share via
Called Debug, the project targets Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, which are native to Africa but have infiltrated nearly half of California’s counties since first being detected in the state in 2013. Not only do they drive residents nuts with itchy bites, but they can carry a number of potentially serious diseases, including dengue, Zika, chikungunya and yellow fever.
The plan is to infect males — which don’t bite — with a bacteria called Wolbachia, which effectively renders them sterile. They are then released to seek out wild females and mate. Females will lay eggs but these won’t hatch, which experts say drives down the population over time.
There are other methods to sterilize male mosquitoes. Vector control districts serving Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties have irradiated males and released them in recent years.
Early results are promising. Two neighborhoods treated by the Greater Los Angeles Vector Control District saw a more than 80% reduction in the female Aedes aegypti population in 2024 and 2025.
But as the Greater L.A. district seeks to expand its operations, cost poses a problem. Last year, business owners signaled they weren’t willing to shell out more every year to make it happen. District officials are still hoping to sway them.
If Google moves forward, it wouldn’t be the first time it has been involved in such an effort. In 2018, the company conducted a large-scale trial in Fresno County, releasing 14.4 million Wolbachia-infected males in three neighborhoods.
“At peak mosquito season, the number of female mosquitoes was 95.5% lower in release areas compared to non-release areas, with the most geographically isolated neighborhood reaching a 99% reduction,” a 2020 paper reported.
Google has applied for a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out the releases in California and Florida, for which the federal agency is currently seeking comments before deciding whether to grant approval.
The company aims to release up to 16 million Wolbachia-infected males in California, and the same in Florida, per year for two years, the Federal Register announcement said, for a total of 64 million.
Urgency to tamp down the invasive mosquito population in California has increased since 2023, when the state logged its first locally acquired dengue cases — meaning people were infected in their communities, not while traveling. The following year, the number of locally acquired cases ballooned to 18, with 14 of them in Los Angeles County.
A study published last week in “The Lancet Regional Health — Americas” found that approximately 18.2 million Californians — primarily in the Central Valley, L.A. and San Diego areas — live in regions where conditions are probably suitable for local dengue transmission.
“Under moderate scenarios of climate warming and urban expansion, an additional 4.1 million residents may be at risk by mid-century,” according to the study led by UC Berkeley’s Lisa Couper. Researchers note the current and future risk of transmission remains low except during summer in the Central Valley and Southern California.
“I’m pretty much in favor of whichever [sterile insect technique] approach gets us the disease prevention and nuisance control we need and at the lowest price,” Susanne Kluh, general manager of the Greater L.A. County Vector Control District, said in an email.
She said her district went with radiation because it was the only approved technique when they wanted to launch their pilot, and that it’s “also the only one where some company does not make a profit in the middle.” However, she wouldn’t rule out using Wolbachia if it turned out to be the most affordable option.
Business
In a first for the country, voters in Monterey Park ban data centers
Residents of Monterey Park voted overwhelmingly to ban data centers on election day, making the San Gabriel Valley city the first in the nation to do so by public vote.
As of Wednesday, 86% of votes were in favor of Measure NDC, the city ban, according to the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk.
Other cities and towns have passed moratoriums on data centers, as a wave of opposition sweeps the country. But the Monterey Park vote can only be overturned by another ballot measure, making it the most permanent data center ban in a jurisdiction.
Monterey Park’s City Council had already banned data centers by ordinance, after a proposed 247,000-square-foot data center met an outpouring of public anger and concern. The developer withdrew that plan.
That facility would have been less than 500 feet away from the nearest home, and would have used three times the electricity of the entire 60,000-person city. Residents said it would have caused noise and air pollution and driven up electricity rates.
“This ensures long-lasting protections for current and future generations,” Amy Wong, co-founder of the group San Gabriel Valley Progressive Action, said of the vote. “It means that future city councils cannot overturn a data center ban, even if data center developers wanted to spend money to fund pro-data center candidates.”
The measure had no formal opposition. The developer of the proposed facility, investment firm HMC StratCap, said it wouldn’t engage in the ballot fight when it withdrew in March.
The Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group, expressed disappointment in the vote.
“It sends a signal that the area is closed for business, both for data centers and for other significant economic development projects,” state policy director Khara Boender said.
“It deprives local residents of the opportunity to compete for jobs and investment, while also causing the area to relinquish substantial long-term economic investment, high-wage jobs, and critical tax revenue to neighboring areas or other states.”
SGV Progressive Action worked with hyperlocal groups including No Data Center Monterey Park to rally support for the measure.
The group is now focused on stopping data center proposals in the City of Industry and fighting a move by City of Industry, Santa Fe Springs, Vernon and City of Commerce to welcome data centers and other industry with fast-tracked permitting and tax incentives.
City of Industry, in the San Gabriel Valley, and Vernon, south of downtown L.A., are primarily industrial areas, each with around 300 permanent residents. They are employment centers, and tens of thousands of workers commute in daily.
There has been little vocal opposition to data centers among the few residents of these cities. Wong said the protest is primarily coming from the surrounding neighborhoods.
“If a data center gets built in City of Industry, residents across the region would bear the brunt of pollution and increased utility costs,” Wong said, noting that it is surrounded by 16 other cities and unincorporated communities.
Data center proposals have been limited in California compared to Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois and Arizona, which sit at the center of a recent boom in hyperscaler facilities to power artificial intelligence.
California has the third-most data centers in the country, with 300, but high electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in other hotspots.
That doesn’t mean opposition hasn’t been fierce. In Coachella and Imperial County, residents are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.
In the San Gabriel Valley, Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoriums, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update.
Wong said she hoped the ballot measure vote would galvanize the opposition. “The vote is a testament to the people power of our region,” she said. “Our region is worth protecting, and we won’t let data centers determine our future.”
Business
Rent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns
A rule intended to prevent rent gouging in the wake of the Eaton and Palisades fires has lapsed in Los Angeles County, possibly exposing some renters to hikes.
The executive order that blocked rent increases was issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom amid the devastating wildfires last year. Under the order, landlords couldn’t increase rents by more than 10% above their prefire levels.
The rule, which was supposed to be temporary and was repeatedly extended, ended Friday after a vote to extend it again failed to garner enough votes. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, sounded the alarm in a motion to extend price protections that failed to pass at the Board of Supervisors’ May 19 meeting.
“These price gouging protections continue to be necessary as construction and rebuilding continue, and as thousands of people remain displaced,” the motion said. “Families which signed short-term leases could face drastic price increases of 50% or more without further price gouging protection.”
Los Angeles County is home to more than 1 million rental properties, though not all of them needed protection from the new rule. There are already stricter rent increase caps for many residences, depending on the location, type and age of the building. Despite the rent control in the region, the people of Los Angeles pay among the highest rents in the country.
It is uncertain whether renters will face rapidly rising rents now that the protection has lapsed. But some real estate experts and policymakers said there was no need for the temporary rule that was part of the governor’s state of emergency.
Supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell abstained from voting on the motion to extend the protection, while Supervisors Hilda Solis and Horvath supported it.
“I abstained because I did not see sufficient evidence to justify extending this emergency ordinance, nor did I see evidence to eliminate it entirely,” Hahn said.
Barger’s office said she supported allowing the protections to sunset while waiting to see whether new information emerged.
“Market data already shows countywide rents are only about 2% above pre-emergency levels and rental inventory has grown,” Barger representative Helen E. Chavez Garcia said. “The Supervisor is also mindful of the burden these ongoing protections place on small property owners throughout the county.”
Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
There haven’t been steep rent hikes in neighborhoods within three miles of the Palisades fire, according to a Times analysis of data from Zillow, the property listing company.
In ZIP Codes within three miles of the Palisades fire, rent increased 4.8% from December 2024 to April 2025. In areas around the Eaton fire, which destroyed swaths of Altadena, rent jumped 5.2% in the same period.
In L.A. County, ZIP Codes farther from the fires saw only about a 2% increase.
A landlords representative, Jesus Rojas of the Apartment Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, told the supervisors during public comment at the meeting that the county’s rent-gouging rules have “long outlived the emergency they were intended to address” and are now being “wrongfully used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the county.”
“There is no proof that multifamily rental housing providers are hugely increasing rents for impacted homeowners,” Rojas said.
Indeed, there are strong signs that the property market in the Los Angeles area has at last begun to cool.
L.A. metro-area rent prices recently fell to a four-year low, with the median rent slipping to $2,167 in December.
Meanwhile, condominium sales had their slowest start of the year in decades. Condo sales in Los Angeles have plummeted to a 20-year low, with fewer than 2,000 units sold in January and February — the worst start to the year since 2005.
Newsom defended the price-gouging protections shortly after they went into effect.
“In the days following the Los Angeles firestorms, we worked quickly to protect Los Angeles survivors from any form of exploitation,” he said in February 2025. “The state has the tools in place to not only block price gouging during this emergency, but also to prosecute bad actors.”
The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs said it received more than 2,000 complaints after the fires, alleging that retailers and landlords were taking advantage of people put in hardship by their losses, and sent out more than 2,000 cease-and-desist letters to businesses and landlords for alleged price gouging, said Morine Merritt, who oversees department investigations into consumer and real estate fraud.
“Close to 90% of the complaints that we received involved allegations of rent increases,” Merritt said in an interview. Now that the fire-related protections have expired, existing laws and “regular market conditions determine price increases for goods and services, including rents,” she said.
Crackdowns on fire-related rent gouging have been rare, said Chelsea Kirk of the activist organization the Rent Brigade, which analyzed L.A. County’s rental market in the year after the fires. It reported 18,360 potential examples of price gouging in listings but said that few lawsuits had been filed by authorities so far.
Last week, Rent Brigade announced what it said was the first private civil lawsuit brought by a family that claimed to be rent-gouged in the aftermath of the wildfires. Plaintiffs Randall and Candy Renick, whose Altadena home was damaged, said they were charged nearly three times the maximum permitted rate for nearly 10 months. They seek restitution of $96,000 plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.
The rental market has probably stabilized since the fires, Kirk said, but other families may still be “locked into illegal rents” that they agreed to pay when they were in a rush to find housing after they were displaced.
-
Lifestyle33 minutes agoHow having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet
-
Technology45 minutes agoAmazon develops a warehouse robot workers can speak to
-
World48 minutes agoAlbino buffalo nicknamed ‘Donald Trump’ becomes sensation at Bangladesh’s national zoo for its blond hair
-
Politics53 minutes agoThe growing list of controversies threatening Democrat Graham Platner’s Maine Senate bid
-
Health1 hour agoNew cancer vaccine delivers stunning result against one of the deadliest skin cancers
-
Sports1 hour agoFan disrupts NBA Finals Game 1 while trying to take selfie with Spurs’ Victor Wembanyama
-
Business1 hour agoHow Google’s 32-million mosquito project could change California’s battle against dengue
-
Entertainment1 hour agoAfter ‘Barbie’ success, Mattel looks to He-Man for another box-office lift