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: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

Published

on

Video: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

new video loaded: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

Virginia voters approved a new map that could flip four House seats away from Republicans going into the 2026 midterm elections. It was the latest fight in the national redistricting war.

By Shawn Paik

April 22, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

WATCH: Sen Warren unloads on Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh in explosive hearing showdown

Published

on

WATCH: Sen Warren unloads on Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh in explosive hearing showdown

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sparks flew on Capitol Hill as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Federal Reserve nominee Kevin Warsh of being a potential “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump.

Warsh, tapped by Trump in January to lead the Federal Reserve, faced a two-and-a-half-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

If confirmed, he would take the helm of the world’s most powerful central bank, shaping interest rates, borrowing costs and the financial outlook for millions of American households for the next four years.

WHO IS KEVIN WARSH, TRUMP’S PICK TO SUCCEED JEROME POWELL AS FED CHAIR?

Advertisement

Kevin Warsh, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, listens to ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., make an opening statement during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

In her opening remarks, Warren sharply criticized Warsh’s record and questioned his independence, arguing he is “uniquely ill-suited for the job as Fed chair” and warning he could give Trump influence over the central bank.

She accused Warsh of enabling Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, which fell during his tenure as a Federal Reserve governor when he served from 2006 to 2011.

“In our meeting last week, we discussed the 2008 financial crash, where 8 million people lost their jobs, 10 million people lost their homes and millions more lost their life savings,” Warren said. “Giant banks, however, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts… and he said to me that he has no regrets about anything he did.”

She added that Warsh “worked tirelessly to arrange multibillion-dollar bailouts” for Wall Street CEOs, with nothing for American families.

Advertisement

The hearing grew more tense as Warren pivoted to ethics concerns, pressing Warsh over his undisclosed financial holdings and questioning him over links to business dealings connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The two spoke over each other and raised their voices in a heated exchange on Capitol Hill.

WARSH’S $226 MILLION FORTUNE UNDER SCRUTINY AS FED NOMINEE FACES SENATE CONFIRMATION

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years. It’s critical that the next chair have no financial conflicts — none. You have more than $100 million in investments that you have refused to disclose. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies tied to money laundering, Chinese-controlled firms, or financing vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein?

Kevin Warsh: Senator, I’ve worked closely with the Office of Government Ethics and agreed to divest all of my financial assets.

Advertisement

Warren: Could you answer my question, please? You have more than $100 million in undisclosed assets. Are any of those investments tied to the entities I just mentioned? It’s a yes-or-no question.

Warsh: I have worked tirelessly with ethics officials and agreed to sell all of my assets before taking the oath of office.

Warren: Are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein? You just won’t say?

Warsh: What I’m telling you is those assets will be sold if I’m confirmed.

Warren: Will you disclose how you plan to divest these assets? The public might question your motives if, for example, someone who profits from predicting Fed policy cuts you a $100 million check as you take office.

Advertisement

Sen. Elizabeth Warren questions Kevin Warsh during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Warsh: I’ve reached a full agreement with the Office of Government Ethics and will divest those assets before taking the oath.

Warren: I’m asking a very straightforward question. Will you disclose how you divest those assets?

Warsh: As I’ve said, I’ve worked with ethics officials.

Warren: I’ll take that as a no.

Advertisement

In a separate exchange, Warren invoked Trump’s past statements about the Fed and challenged Warsh to prove his independence in real time.

She insisted that Warsh answer whether he believes Trump won the 2020 presidential election and if he would name policies of the president with which he disagrees. The hopeful future Fed chair dodged the question and said he would remain apolitical, if confirmed.

THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO

Warren: Donald Trump has made clear he does not want an independent Fed. He has said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be Fed chairman.” He’s also said interest rates will drop “when Kevin gets in.” Let’s check out your independence and your courage. We’ll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?

Warsh: Senator, we should keep politics out of the Federal Reserve.

Advertisement

Warren: I’m asking a factual question.

Warsh: This body certified the election.

Warren: That’s not what I asked. Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?

Warsh: The Fed should stay out of politics.

Warren: In our meeting, you said you’re a “tough guy” who can stand up to President Trump. So name one aspect of his economic agenda you disagree with.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Kevin Warsh listens to a question during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Warsh: That’s not something I’m prepared to do. The Fed should stay in its lane.

Warren: Just one place where you disagree.

Warsh: I do have one disagreement — he said I looked like I was out of central casting. I think I’d look older and grayer.

Advertisement

Warren: That’s adorable. But we need a Fed chair who is independent. If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage or the independence.

Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: He honked to support a ‘No Kings’ rally. A cop busted him

Published

on

Commentary: He honked to support a ‘No Kings’ rally. A cop busted him

On March 28, a sunny Saturday in southwestern Utah, Jack Hoopes and his wife, Lorna, brought their homemade signs to the local “No Kings” rally.

The couple joined a crowd of 1,500 or so marching through the main picnic area of a park in downtown St. George. Their signs — cut-out words on a black background — chided lawmakers for failing to stand up to President Trump and urged America to “make lying wrong again.”

After about an hour, the two were ready to go home. They got in their silver Volvo SUV, but before pulling away, Jack Hoopes decided to swing past the demonstration, which was still going strong. He tooted his horn, twice, in a show of solidarity.

That’s when things took a curious turn.

A police officer parked in the middle of the street warned Hoopes not to honk; at least that’s what he thinks the officer said as Hoopes drove past the chanting crowd. When he spotted two familiar faces, Hoopes hit the horn a third time — a friendly, howdy sort of honk. “It wasn’t like I was being obnoxious,” he said, “or laying on the horn.”

Advertisement

Hoopes turned a corner and the cop, lights flashing, pulled him over. He asked Hoopes for his license and registration. He returned a few moments later. A passing car sounded its horn. “Are you going to stop him, too?” Hoopes asked.

That did not sit well. The officer said he’d planned to let Hoopes off with a warning. Instead, he charged the 71-year-old retired potato farmer with violating Utah’s law on horns and warning devices. He issued a citation, with a fine punishable up to $50.

Hoopes — a law school graduate and prosecutor in the days before he took up potato farming — is fighting back, even though he estimates the legal skirmishing could cost him considerably more than the maximum fine. The ticket might have resulted from pique on the officer’s part. But Hoopes doesn’t think so. He sees politics at play.

“I’ve beeped my horn for [the pro-law enforcement] Back the Blue. I’ve beeped my horn for Black Lives Matter,” Hoopes said. “I’ve seen a lot of people honk for Trump and for MAGA.”

He’s also seen plenty of times when people honked their horns to celebrate high school championships and the like.

Advertisement

But Hoopes has never heard of anyone being pulled over, much less ticketed, for excessive or unlawful honking. “I think it’s freedom of expression,” he said.

Or should be.

Jack and Lorna Hoopes made their own protest signs to bring to the “No Kings” rally in St. George, Utah.

(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)

Advertisement

St. George is a fast-growing community of about 100,000 residents set amid the jagged red-rock peaks of the Mojave Desert. It’s a jumping-off point for Zion National Park, about 40 miles east, and a mecca for golf, hiking and mountain-bike riding.

It’s also Trump Country.

Washington County, where St. George is located, gave Trump 75% of its vote in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning a scant 23%. That emphatic showing compares with Trump’s 59% performance statewide.

St. George is where Hoopes and his wife live most of the time. When summer and its 100-degree temperatures hit, they retreat to southeast Idaho. The couple get along well with their neighbors in both places, Hoopes said, even though they’re Democrats living in ruby-red country. It’s not as though they just tolerate folks, or hold their noses to get by.

“Most of my friends are conservative,” Hoopes said. “Some of the Trump people are very good people. We just have a difference of opinion where our country is going.”

Advertisement

He was speaking from a hotel parking lot in Arizona near Lake Havasu while embarked on an annual motorcycle ride through the Southwest: four days, a dozen riders, 1,200 miles. Most of his companions are Trump supporters, Hoopes said, and, just like back home, everyone gets on fine.

“Right?” he called out.

“No!” a voice hollered back.

Actually, Hoopes joked, his charitable road mates let him ride along because they consider him handicapped — his disability being his political ideology.

Hoopes is not exactly a hellion. In 2014, he and his wife traveled to Africa to participate in humanitarian work and promote sustainable agriculture in Kenya and Uganda. In 2020, they worked as Red Cross volunteers helping wildfire victims in Northern California.

Advertisement

Virtually his entire life has been spent on the right side of the law, though Hoopes allowed as how he has racked up a few speeding tickets over the years. (His career as a prosecutor lasted four years and involved three murder cases in the first 12 months before he left the legal profession behind and took up farming.)

He’s never had any problems with the police in St. George. “They seem to be decent,” Hoopes said.

A department spokesperson, Tiffany Mitchell, said illicit honking is not a widespread problem in the placid, retiree-heavy community, but there are some who have been cited for violations. She denied any political motivation in Hoopes’ case.

“He must’ve felt justified,” Mitchell said of the officer who issued the citation. “I can’t imagine that politics had anything to do with it.”

And yes, she said, honking a horn can be a political statement protected by the 1st Amendment. “But, just like anything else, it can turn criminal,” Mitchell said, and apparently that’s how the officer felt on March 28 “and that’s the direction he took it.”

Advertisement

The matter now rests before a judge, residing in a legal system that has lately been tested and twisted in remarkable ways.

A pair of hands resting on a traffic citation given for alleged excessive honking

Jack Hoopes’ case is now before a judge in St. George, Utah.

(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)

As he left an initial hearing earlier this month, Hoopes said his phone pinged with a fresh headline out of Washington. Trump’s Justice Department, it was reported, was asking a federal appeals court to throw out the convictions of 12 people found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

“We have a president that pardons people that broke into the Capitol and defecated” in the hallways and congressional offices, Hoopes said. “Police officers died because of it, and yet I get picked up for honking my horn?”

Advertisement

Hoopes’ next court appearance, a pretrial conference, is set for July 15.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending