Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is legally sound

Published

on

Opinion: Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is legally sound

Less than two weeks into this second Trump presidency, the fearmongering has already reached fever pitch. “He can’t do it!” the critics have invariably howled in decrying President Trump’s landmark Day 1 executive order upending the status quo on birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are neither permanent residents nor citizens. The usual suspects in the punditocracy say Trump’s order is blatantly unconstitutional and that it violates settled law. Perhaps it’s even “nativist” or “racist,” to boot!

Like the Bourbons of old, pearl-clutching American elites have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Because when it comes to birthright citizenship, the virtue-signaling and armchair excoriation is not just silly; it’s dead wrong on the law. Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order on birthright citizenship is legally sound and fundamentally just. He deserves credit, not condemnation, for implementing such a bold order as one of his first second-term acts.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The clause’s purpose was to overturn the infamous 1857 Supreme Court case, Dred Scott, and thereby ensure that Black Americans were, and would forever be, full-fledged citizens.

The clause was understood to apply to Black Americans because, even before emancipation, they had long been universally viewed as “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — unlike, for example, Native Americans. (Congress did not pass the Indian Citizenship Act, which finally extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans, until 1924.)

Our debate today thus depends on whether, in 1868, foreign citizens or subjects — whether here legally or illegally — were considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Advertisement

They weren’t.

In the post-Civil War Republican-dominated Congress, the 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Rep. James Wilson (R-Iowa), who was then House Judiciary Committee chairman and a leading drafter of the 14th Amendment, emphasized that the amendment was “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.” Similarly, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Mich.), the principal author of the Citizenship Clause, described it as “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.”

The relevant part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 reads: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” In other words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” necessarily excludes those “subject to any foreign power.” As then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull (R-Ill.) said during the ratification debate, “subject to the jurisdiction” means subject to the United States’ “complete” jurisdiction — that is, “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

And so the 14th Amendment, properly understood, does not constitutionally require that a child born in the U.S. to noncitizens be granted citizenship. (Whether Congress passes additional rights-bestowing laws is a separate matter.)

This understanding was unchallenged for decades. In the “slaughterhouse cases” of 1873, Justice Samuel Miller interpreted the Citizenship Clause as “intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” And in the 1884 case of Elk vs. Wilkins, Justice Horace Gray held that “subject to the jurisdiction” means “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

Advertisement

It’s true that Gray inexplicably reversed course in an oft-cited 1898 case, United States vs. Wong Kim Ark. Over a powerful and compelling dissenting opinion, Gray held that there is some level of birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of lawfully present noncitizens. But even in that wrongfully decided case, the court emphasized that its holding was limited to children of “resident aliens” who were under “the allegiance” of the United States. The court repeatedly emphasized that its holding applied only to children of those legitimately “domiciled” here.

In no world whatsoever does Gray’s pro-birthright citizenship opinion in Wong Kim Ark apply to children of people in the U.S. illegally. Eighty-four years later, in Plyler vs. Doe, the court dropped in a superfluous footnote indicating that Wong Kim Ark also applies to the children of people in the U.S. illegally. But this nonbinding footnote from Justice William J. Brennan Jr., a leading liberal, does not the “law of the land” make.

Extending birthright citizenship that far is, at best, a live and unsettled legal debate. But the original meaning of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Its authors would have been aghast at the notion that people who broke our laws could then be afforded birthright citizenship for their children. The drafters likely foresaw, as so many today do not, the tremendous perverse incentives induced by such an ill-conceived policy.

The legal eagles so eager to call out President Trump are wrong. And he, yet again, is right.

Josh Hammer is a senior editor-at-large for Newsweek. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

Published

on

Trump calls for .5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget. 

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening. 

“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.” 

The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”

Advertisement

SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest. 

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.

Advertisement

CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE

This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.

Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)

Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

Advertisement

Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders. 

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said. 

“​Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”

U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023.  (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.

An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.

Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Published

on

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

Advertisement

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending