Politics

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

Published

1 year ago

January 31, 2025

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.

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.”

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

Politics

Rep. Kevin Kiley opts against challenging fellow Republican Tom McClintock

Published

12 minutes ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Rep. Kevin Kiley opts against challenging fellow Republican Tom McClintock

Northern California Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), whose congressional district was carved up in the redistricting ballot measures approved by voters last year, announced Monday that he would not challenge fellow Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove. Instead, he plans to run in the Democratic-leaning district where he resides.

“It’s true that I was fully prepared to run in [McClintock’s district], having tested the waters and with polls showing a favorable outlook in a ‘safe’ district. But doing what’s easy and what’s right are often not the same,” Kiley posted on the social media site X. “And at the end of the day, as much as I love the communities in [that] District that I represent now – and as excited as I was about the new ones – seeking office in a district that doesn’t include my hometown didn’t feel right.”

Kiley, 41, currently represents a congressional district that spans Lake Tahoe to Sacramento. He did not respond to requests for comment.

But after California voters in November passed Proposition 50 — a ballot measure to redraw the state’s congressional districts in an effort to counter Trump’s moves to increase the numbers of Republicans in Congress — Kiley’s district was sliced up into other districts.

As the filing deadline approaches, Kiley pondered his path forward in a decision that was compared by political insiders to the reality television show “The Bachelor.” Who would receive the final rose? McClintock’s new sprawling congressional district includes swaths of gold country, the Central Valley and Death Valley. The district Kiley opted to run in includes the city of Sacramento and the suburbs of Roseville and Rocklin in Placer County.

Kiley was facing headwinds because of the Republican institutional support that lined up behind McClintock, 69, who has been in Congress since 2009 and served in the state Legislature for 26 years previously. President Trump, the California Republican Party and the Club for Growth’s political action committee are among the people and groups who have endorsed McClintock.

Conservative strategist Jon Fleischman, a former executive director of the state GOP, said he was thrilled by Kiley’s decision, which avoids a divisive intraparty battle.

“If you open up the dictionary and look for the word conservative, it’s a photo of Tom McClintock. He is the ideological leader of conservatives, not only in California but in Congress for many, many years,” Fleischman said, adding that the endorsements for McClintock purposefully came because Kiley was considering challenging him.

Kiley, who grew up near Sacramento, attended Harvard University and Yale Law School. A former Teach for America member, he served in the state Assembly for six years before being elected to Congress in 2022 with Trump’s backing. But he has bucked the president, notably on tariffs. He also unsuccessfully ran to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom during the 2021 recall, and has been a constant critic of the governor.

Kiley is now running in a Sacramento-area district represented by Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove). Democrats in the newly drawn district had a nearly 9-point voter registration edge in 2024. Bera is now running in the new version of Kiley’s district.

In Kiley’s new race, his top rival is Dr. Richard Pan of Sacramento, a former state senator and staunch supporter of vaccinations.

“Kevin Kiley can try to rebrand himself, but voters know his extreme record,” Pan said in a statement. “He has stood with Donald Trump 98% of the time and was named a ‘MAGA Champion.’ The people of this district deserve better than political opportunism disguised as moderation. This race is about who will actually fight for healthcare, public health, and working families. I’ve done that my entire career. Kevin Kiley has not.”

Politics

Video: Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

Published

11 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Video: Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

new video loaded: Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

transcript

Defense Officials Give No Timeline for War in Iran as U.S. Boosts Forces

At a Pentagon news conference, top defense officials said that the U.S. military was sending more forces to the Middle East and expects to “take additional losses.” Earlier, President Trump said that the U.S. could continue striking Iran for the next four to five weeks.

: “We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it. This operation is a clear, devastating, decisive mission. Destroy the missile threat. Destroy the navy. No nukes. President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take. Four weeks. Two weeks, six weeks. It could move up. It could move back. We’re going to execute at his command the objectives we’ve set out to achieve.” “We expect to take additional losses. And as always, we will work to minimize U.S. losses. But as the secretary said, this is major combat operations.” Reporter: “Are there currently any American boots on the ground in Iran?” “No, but we’re not going to go into the exercise of what we will or will not do. I think — it’s one of those fallacies for a long time that this department or presidents or others should tell the American people. This — and our enemies by the way — here’s exactly what we’ll do. Why in the world would we tell you, you, the enemy, anybody, what we will or will not do in pursuit of an objective?”
Advertisement

At a Pentagon news conference, top defense officials said that the U.S. military was sending more forces to the Middle East and expects to “take additional losses.” Earlier, President Trump said that the U.S. could continue striking Iran for the next four to five weeks.

By Christina Kelso

March 2, 2026

Politics

Gas prices could jump as Middle East tensions threaten global oil supply

Published

12 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Gas prices could jump as Middle East tensions threaten global oil supply

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Americans could soon see higher gas prices as escalating tensions in the Middle East threaten a critical global oil chokepoint, raising fears of supply disruptions that could quickly reverberate across U.S. energy markets.

After joint U.S.–Israeli strikes, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, targeted Iranian sites over the weekend and killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, concerns quickly shifted to how Tehran might respond and whether oil infrastructure or tanker traffic could become collateral damage.

Any disruption to global crude supplies could translate into higher costs for American drivers at the pump.

“Every time we’ve had flare-ups in the Middle East like we’re seeing right now — and we’ve seen this kind of situation periodically over the last 50 years — it has caused significant disruption to energy markets,” economist Stephen Moore told Fox News Digital.

“I would expect we could see anywhere from 25 to 50 cents a gallon increase in gas prices in the short term,” he said.

Experts say Americans will likely pay more for gas due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. (Matthew Hatcher/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

Market data already shows prices moving higher.

Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said oil prices were up $5 per barrel, while wholesale gasoline prices had risen 11 cents per gallon.

He expects retail gas prices to begin climbing immediately, especially in areas where stations tend to adjust prices in sharp, periodic jumps.

The national average could hit $3 per gallon as soon as Monday, De Haan said, with some stations increasing prices by 10 to 30 cents this week and potentially more in markets that see larger price swings.

Moore warned that prices could climb further and remain elevated if vital transit routes or oil facilities are disrupted.

TRUMP PLEDGES TO ‘AVENGE’ FALLEN US SERVICE MEMBERS AS TENSIONS WITH IRAN INTENSIFY

The ongoing conflict in Iran is near a major energy corridor. (Contributor/Getty Images)

“Huge amounts of global oil travel through the Strait of Hormuz, so this could be incredibly disruptive, delaying delivery of oil and gas,” he said.

“The Iranians have already knocked out some oil facilities in the Middle East, and who knows what they’re up to next. When you have less supply, prices go up. The big question is whether this will be a temporary bump or something more prolonged.”

The ongoing conflict sits near the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important energy corridors.

“This shipping route represents around 25% of global oil trade and 23% of liquefied natural gas trade,” explained Jaime Brito, executive director of refining and oil products at OPIS.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping lane between Iran and Oman that has long been a flashpoint during regional crises, serves as a vital artery for global energy markets.

Roughly 20 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products — about one-fifth of global oil supply — transit the strait each day, underscoring how disruption there can quickly send shockwaves through international energy markets.

HORMUZ ERUPTS: ATTACKS, GPS JAMMING, HOUTHI THREATS ROCK STRAIT AMID US-ISRAELI STRIKES

A satellite view of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy supply, connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. (Gallo Images/Orbital Horizon/Copernicus Sentinel Data 2025/Amanda Macias/Fox News Digital)

Highlighting the growing concern, Maersk, widely regarded as a bellwether for global ocean freight, said it will suspend all vessel crossings through the Strait of Hormuz until further notice and cautioned that services to Arabian Gulf ports may be delayed.

Still, not all price movements are immediate.

“Developments over the weekend in the Middle East should hypothetically take time to ripple into the global supply chain. An initial assessment would suggest no specific price impacts should be seen in the gasoline market across the world, including the U.S.,” Brito told Fox News Digital.

However, Brito said prices could climb quickly if markets expect trouble ahead, even before supplies are actually affected.

As a result, Brito said, developments in Iran may have already translated into higher gasoline, diesel and other fuel prices in parts of the U.S., depending on regional supply dynamics and individual company pricing strategies.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Experts say the increase in gas prices will be largely determined by how long the conflict in the Middle East lasts. (John McCall/South Florida Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

From a domestic standpoint, Brito added that gasoline prices follow a seasonal pattern, typically climbing during the summer travel months.

“March prices are not expected to be significantly high,” he said, noting that spring break travel could support demand in certain areas — but not at the level seen during peak summer driving season.

Ultimately, the direction of gasoline prices will depend less on seasonal demand and more on how the geopolitical situation unfolds in the days ahead.

Amanda covers the intersection of business and politics for Fox News Digital.