Politics
Unconstitutional and dangerous: Trump’s executive order puts millions at risk
A sweeping executive order signed on Monday has sparked legal battles and raised serious questions about its implications for millions.
On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump wasted no time issuing executive orders. Among them, a directive titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” – clearly less catchy so harder to remember for his loyal band of followers – which aims to deny birthright citizenship to certain children born in the United States. Yes, going against that right guaranteed by the Constitution. While the headlines may focus on the more bizarre plans (hola Mexico y Panama), this particular order could have profound consequences for the nation’s identity and legal framework.
Birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, is straightforward: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Supreme Court affirmed this in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), establishing that children born on U.S. soil – regardless of their parents' immigration status – are citizens, with rare exceptions such as children of diplomats or hostile occupiers.
Trump’s order ignores this precedent, targeting two groups: children born to undocumented mothers whose fathers lack legal status, and children born to temporary visitors where the father’s status is also unresolved.
While the order won’t apply retroactively, it attempts to strip citizenship from children born 30 days after its signing. Though framed as a forward-looking policy, the implications are deeply unsettling, undermining centuries-old legal principles and threatening millions of future Americans.
Is Trump’s order legal?
The Constitution helps us on this matter, and without much debate, unless your goal is to undermine it. The 14th Amendment doesn’t hedge its language or add qualifiers like “complete jurisdiction,” as some of Trump’s allies have suggested. Attempts to twist its meaning were firmly rejected over a century ago in the case I mentioned earlier, which established that even individuals born to noncitizen parents – like the children this order targets – are entitled to citizenship under the law. But oh, how the crowd cheered.
Trump’s directive offers little legal justification, maybe not surprising given his criminal record, vaguely claiming that birthright citizenship was never meant to be universal. But this mischaracterizes the 14th Amendment’s exceptions, which only apply to diplomats, occupying armies, or, historically, members of Native tribes (a provision nullified in 1924). For anyone else born in the U.S., citizenship is automatic. By implying otherwise, the order not only defies constitutional law but also fails the basic test of legal reasoning.
Could the courts intervene?
Pro-immigration groups, led by the ACLU, have already filed lawsuits to block the order. Lower courts are expected to uphold the precedent established by Wong Kim Ark, which binds them to recognize birthright citizenship. Yet with the current Supreme Court’s 6-3 Republican majority, helped by Trump’s last stint in the White House, the situation is less certain. The Court has shown a willingness to reinterpret established precedent in recent years, leaving open the slim but troubling possibility of a ruling in Trump’s favor.
This raises an unsettling question: could other constitutional guarantees face similar challenges under a president determined to redefine legal norms? For millions of Americans, the stakes are more than theoretical.
Get your game on! Whether you’re into NFL touchdowns, NBA buzzer-beaters, world-class soccer goals, or MLB home runs, our app has it all. Dive into live coverage, expert insights, breaking news, exclusive videos, and more – plus, stay updated on the latest in current affairs and entertainment. Download now for all-access coverage, right at your fingertips – anytime, anywhere.