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
With a big $46-million opening for ‘Hoppers,’ Disney and Pixar see a return to form
Walt Disney Co. and Pixar’s “Hoppers” took the box office crown this weekend in an encouraging sign for the company’s original animated films.
The film generated $46 million in ticket sales in the U.S. and Canada, marking the highest domestic opening for an original animated movie since 2017’s “Coco,” according to studio estimates. The global box office total for “Hoppers” was $88 million.
The zany movie features a young environmental advocate who “hops” her consciousness into a robotic beaver and bands together with other woodland creatures to stop a planned freeway expansion through a glade.
The film is directed by Daniel Chong, who created the Cartoon Network animated series “We Bare Bears.”
The muscular debut for “Hoppers,” as well as the strong performance from Sony Pictures Animation’s “Goat” last month, has been a positive sign for audience interest in original animated films.
Since the pandemic, theatrical returns for animated sequels have far surpassed that of original films. Disney’s “Zootopia 2,” for instance, has grossed more than $1.8 billion in global box office revenue, with more than $426 million domestically. Disney and Pixar’s 2024 hit “Inside Out 2” also crossed more than $1.6 billion globally.
By contrast, Disney and Pixar’s 2025 original film “Elio” brought in about $154 million in worldwide box office revenue.
Original films are vital to Pixar’s future, as the Emeryville, Calif.-based studio built its reputation on its string of nearly uninterrupted original blockbuster hits, including 1995’s “Toy Story” and 2004’s “The Incredibles.”
Paramount Pictures and Spyglass Media Group’s “Scream 7” came in second at the box office with $17.3 million in its second weekend in theaters. Warner Bros. Pictures’ “The Bride!,” Sony’s “Goat” and Warner Bros.’ “Wuthering Heights” rounded out the top five at the box office, according to data from Comscore.
With several strong releases, as well as popular holdover films from 2025 that continue to bring in revenue, the first few months at the box office have been a notable improvement over last year’s dismal first quarter.
Domestic box office revenue so far is up more than 12% compared with the same time period in 2025, according to Comscore.
Business
Hundreds of applications, no jobs and AI competition: California’s brutal tech work landscape
Laid-off tech worker Joseph Tinner has spent almost a year hunting for a job. It has been a depressing crash course on the sea change in Silicon Valley.
The former product instructor from the San Francisco Bay Area has ridden the tech wave throughout his career, easily jumping from Verizon to Fitbit to Workday. Since losing his job early last year, the 59-year-old has hit a wall.
He applied for hundreds of roles — sometimes going through multiple rounds of consideration — only to get rejected again and again.
“It’s been a roller coaster,” he said. “It just takes a lot of resilience, honestly, to be in this job market.”
He isn’t alone.
Tech companies that aggressively hired during the COVID-19 pandemic have been slashing tens of thousands of jobs. For workers like Tinner, it has been a rough realization that the Silicon Valley shakeout is stretching into another year.
Just last week, Block — the financial tech company that owns payment services Square, Cash App and Afterpay — said it is laying off 4,000 people, or half of its workforce.
Many other tech companies outside the hot artificial intelligence sector are slashing staff. Block blamed AI, saying the powerful technology means it no longer needs as many people.
“The intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company,” Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Block and a founder of Twitter, said in a post on X.
U.S.-based tech employers announced more than 33,000 job cuts from January to February, up 51% compared with the same period last year, the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas said Thursday.
Andy Challenger, workplace expert and chief revenue officer for the firm, said he used to be skeptical that companies could replace workers with AI, but he’s starting to become convinced.
“Artificial intelligence has overtaken the attention of these companies in such a dramatic way,” he said.
Mass layoffs in the tech industry started in 2022, after a hiring surge during the pandemic, when demand for online services increased as people were stuck at home.
But many of the world’s most powerful tech companies have continued cutting, even as their profits have grown. They’ve cited various reasons for layoffs, from strategic shifts and restructuring to pivoting to smaller teams and fewer managers.
An advertisement promoting an AI-powered company is seen downtown on Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025 in San Francisco, CA.
(Manuel Orbegozo/For The Times)
Tech companies such as EBay, Meta, Google, Autodesk, Pinterest, Salesforce and others have been shrinking their workforces. Layoffs have also hit the media and entertainment companies, including Los Angeles video game developer Riot Games.
On LinkedIn, laid-off workers who have been out of work — some for more than two years — have been asking for help finding a job. They’ve been sharing stories about their financial and emotional struggles, including losing their confidence, homes and savings as they search for work.
Tech workers who have seen their employers grow over the last decade have noticed a shift in corporate culture. Workers who have been laid off before said it has been tougher and taken longer to land a new job than in previous years.
A longtime Salesforce employee, who was recently laid off and asked to remain anonymous, concerned that speaking to the media could affect their severance, said the sales software company used to be more focused on helping its employees. Salesforce broadcast this value by highlighting its “ohana,” culture, using the Hawaiian word for family.
“I was just incredibly grateful every day to be able to wake up and make a positive change in the world,” the worker said. “I thought that the company was devoted to the same thing.”
But the tone at Salesforce shifted in 2023 as the company faced pressure to cut costs and increase profits. New leaders came in, and the focus changed.
“The company is trying to erase any semblance of the way that it used to be,” the worker said.
Salesforce has said AI is helping it squeeze more profit from fewer people.
“AI is doing 30% to 50% of the work at Salesforce now,” the company’s co-founder and Chief Executive Marc Benioff told Bloomberg.
Salesforce didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce Inc., during a Bloomberg Television interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos,
(Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Although technology is changing the way people work, experts and even some AI executives think companies sometime use AI as an excuse to cut workers in what’s referred to as “AI washing.”
Enrico Moretti, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley, said other factors besides AI are fueling layoffs. As a company grows larger and matures, it doesn’t hire as much as before.
“It’s a shift in their position and the maturing of their product, and therefore the technologies and their employment needs,” he said.
Roger Lee, an entrepreneur who created a website to track layoffs, Layoffs.fyi, in 2020, said in an email that tech companies are pouring billions of dollars into AI investments, and cutting headcount helps offset those costs.
When he started tracking layoffs six years ago, Lee wanted to create awareness around tech layoffs and help laid-off workers find their next job. He never anticipated the layoffs would continue today.
“I do think 6 years of persistent layoffs have led many tech workers to re-evaluate the perceived ‘safety’ of tech jobs and their relationship with the industry overall,” he said in an email.
According to Layoffs.fyi’s latest count, there have been more than 35,000 layoffs in the tech sector worldwide so far this year.
Close to half of that total is from Amazon alone.
Unemployed tech worker Tinner was laid off from Workday, a Pleasanton company that provides a platform to businesses, universities and organizations to manage payroll, benefits, finances and other tasks.
In 2025, Workday slashed roughly 1,750 jobs, or 8.5% of its global workforce, citing a prioritization of investments in artificial intelligence and platform development. Then in February, the company said it plans to cut 2% of its workforce, or roughly 400 employees.
As job cuts pile up, Tinner is up against intense competition in a job market flooded with talent from the top companies in tech.
As he ponders his next career steps, he’s also redefining his identity and relationship with work.
He’s even tried pouring beer for fun or thought about doing more artwork.
“Maybe what I need to do is just celebrate all I’ve done instead of getting back into this rat race, on this treadmill, and look for something totally different,” he said.
Business
State Farm reaches deal to keep 17% hike in home insurance rates
A brokered deal with regulators and consumer advocates will allow State Farm General to keep controversial increases in home insurance rates that took effect last year in the wake of the devastating Los Angeles wildfires.
The agreement sent to a judge late Friday cements a $530-million emergency hike in home insurance rates Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara negotiated with the insurer last summer.
“The agreement will provide financial relief to many policyholders while ensuring continued coverage for State Farm policyholders while California’s insurance market stabilizes,” the insurance department said in a news release.
State Farm argued the emergency hike was necessary because catastrophic fire losses jeopardized its financial ratings.
The company has reported that it paid out $6.2 billion in claims last year, largely from the wildfires, with most of the costs covered through reinsurance payments. The company has told regulators it anticipates to pay an additional $1 billion in claims.
The deal allows the insurer to keep an average 17% increase in homeowner rates. Local rates for many of the company’s 1 million home customers were much higher.
However, consumer advocates argued the agreement held the line on even higher increases and halted further policy cancellations that have deepened a crisis in the state’s insurance industry.
State Farm, California’s largest home insurer, froze new business in 2023, announced 72,000 mass non-renewals, and sought a series of rate hikes. Its average homeowners premium in California doubled from 2020 to 2024.
Under Friday’s agreement, State Farm agrees to forgo mass non-renewals in 2026 and undergo further review of its rates by 2027.
Additionally, State Farm will be required to return nearly two-thirds of its 15% increase to condominium owners, deliver a small refund to rental property owners and be able to raise premiums for renters a half a percent.
“This rate enables State Farm General to continue serving existing California customers,” the company said in a statement. “We will continue to monitor our capacity to support the risks we insure and maintain the financial strength needed to pay claims and support customers and communities when it matters most.”
If approved by an administrative law judge, the settlement will be forwarded to Lara, who is expected to back it.
The arrangement sidesteps efforts to tie State Farm’s rates to its handling of disaster claims.
Under pressure from community advocates and lawmakers, Lara in May had said he wanted the two issues evaluated together.
In June, Lara announced his department would conduct an “expedited” examination into State Farm’s market conduct. In rate hearing proceedings, agency staff sought to block discussion of State Farm’s claims handling in relation to its quest for premium hikes.
The pact does not directly address complaints of unhappy policyholders who say Lara’s administration has failed to hold State Farm accountable, which the insurance department has disputed.
A department spokesman said Lara would not comment on the matter while the rate settlement is before an administrative judge.
The Jan. 7, 2025, firestorm destroyed at least 16,000 homes, triggering more than 42,000 insurance claims. State Farm has said it has 13,500 fire and auto claims related to the fires.
The insurer has come under heavy criticism from fire victims over its handling of claims, including complaints of low payout offers, denials for toxin testing and delays in payments for living expenses. The company has declined to comment on the complaints.
Some 51,000 State Farm homeowners live in disaster areas struggling to recover from the L.A. firestorm. Regulatory filings show those areas among the hardest hit by the current hikes.
Malibu resident Chad Peters said his bill from State Farm increased 140% in the last year, from $3,500 to $8,400.
Peters said he has battled State Farm for 14 months over smoke and fire damage to his home from the Palisades fire, and that the insurer at one point attempted to cancel his coverage because the house remained unrepaired.
He called rate increases in such circumstances “ludicrous, while they’re giving everyone such a hard time with their insurance … I mean, mine has been a steep uphill battle all year long.”
Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra) had urged Lara to delay hikes until after the investigation into State Farm’s conduct.
“The fact that I have so many individuals who have not received any of their claims, that are still navigating denials and delays, who are actively running out of [living expense payments] and … facing housing insecurity — it makes me deeply concerned,” Pérez said.
Pérez, along with Sens. Ben Allen (D-Pacific Palisades) and Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), in April pressed Lara to defer rate hikes until State Farm General’s claims practices could be investigated. “This was a big priority for us.”
Pérez said she would seek answers to the market conduct exam as part of a Senate inquiry into the insurance department’s handling of those complaints, along with scrutiny of the department’s discipline of a compliance officer who criticized State Farm’s handling of claims.
State Farm General, an offshoot of national insurance giant State Farm Mutual, contends it has been financially sinking as seasonal wildfires morph into catastrophic urban conflagrations that destroy towns.
In mid-2024, the company asked to raise home premiums by nearly $1 billion. Lara secured an agreement that State Farm Mutual lend its California affiliate $400 million, but the insurer would not agree to cancel plans for dropping 11,000 more policyholders.
The settlement allows State Farm to avoid a public hearing that would have forced the disclosure of solvency records, mass non-renewals and other information it said would help competitors.
-
Wisconsin1 week agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts6 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland1 week agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida1 week agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Pennsylvania4 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
Oregon1 week ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
News1 week ago2 Survivors Describe the Terror and Tragedy of the Tahoe Avalanche
-
Sports4 days agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death