The Dictatorship

There’s a simple reason Trump cannot simply erase birthright citizenship

Published

1 year ago

January 22, 2025

There’s a simple reason Trump cannot simply erase birthright citizenship

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that purportedly would end what is known as birthright citizenshipthe concept that anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. That right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Just as a president does not have the authority to establish a national religion, or stay in office for a third term, the president does not have the authority to erase protections set forth in an amendment to the Constitution. To claim such authority is cynical at best, a sop to nativist elements on the right that should not survive legal challenge. But, in the meantime, millions of lives could be thrown into disarray with the president’s stroke of the pen, and perhaps that’s the point.

The notion of birthright citizenship was established as a principle of law in England in the 1600s and was enshrined in the U.S.’ “Second Founding,” the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution in the wake of the Civil War.

The president does not have the authority to erase protections set forth in an amendment to the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment, which guarantees to anyone born within the United States the rights and protections of citizenship, was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. That decision became one of the many sparks that contributed to the Civil War. There, the court not only found unconstitutional any efforts by Congress to “compromise” around the spread of slavery to new U.S. territories and states; it also determined that enslaved persons, even ones who had resided in areas that prohibited slavery, did not enjoy the rights of citizens. The decision helped galvanize and harden public opinion around slavery, both among those who opposed it and those who supported it and wanted it to operate unfettered by federal law.

After the end of the war and during Reconstruction, Congress passed these amendments with the explicit purpose of ending slavery and involuntary servitude in all their forms. The 14th Amendment’s opening text provides that “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.” Because of that language, the president cannot, with the stroke of a pen, rewrite the Constitution.

Nor can Congress. Indeed, roughly 30 years after passage of the 14th Amendment, Congress attempted to exclude from its protections individuals born in the U.S. who were the children of Chinese parents. But the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Arkfound that any person born within the United States was entitled to benefit from the citizenship provisions of the 14th Amendment. The plain language of the amendment made that clear and the court endorsed that obvious position.

So what would it really take to rewrite the 14th Amendment? Well, another amendment, which would require not just a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress in favor of repeal of the 14th Amendment, but also ratification by three quarters of the states. Such events are highly unlikely. The Constitution is hard to amend, as it should be. And the notion that the president can sidestep that process is simply preposterous.

Now, that likely will not stop the president and those who wish to see the end of birthright citizenship as enshrined in the Constitution from trying. Indeed, it was a pillar of the Project 2025 playbook. That does not change the fact that the Constitution protects this path to citizenship and only an amendment to the Constitution can change it.

But that does not mean that the president’s effort to try to rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen will not disrupt lives in the meantime. The cruelty of such a cynical move may be exactly what those who wish to end birthright citizenship wish to achieve.

The lives of real people will not be upended, and all for a cynical, cruel and unconstitutional joyride. But that may be the point.

Certainly, such a step would be met promptly by lawsuits challenging the action. In fact, a collection of 18 state attorneys general and some cities have already filed a suit against the order. Perhaps some judge, somewhere, will consider such an action permissible and refuse to prevent it from going into effect. Would it only prevent citizenship from being conferred on those born on U.S. soil in the future as the order purports to do? Could a judicial ruling approving the order invite the administration to seek to strip current citizens of their status?

But the Supreme Court — even this conservative court — will be hard-pressed to engage in down-is-up, up-is-down, Alice-in-Wonderland thinking: that the explicit words of the Constitution, as interpreted consistently for roughly a century-and-a-half, do not mean what they say.

Nevertheless, the president is seeking to end birthright citizenship; such action should be deemed contrary to the plain text of the Constitution. At the same time, lower court endorsement of the position might embolden even more aggressive steps by the administration, even if the Supreme Court should ultimately say the order is unconstitutional, which it should. That does not mean that, in the interim, the lives of real people will not be upended, and all for a cynical, cruel and unconstitutional joyride. But that may be the point.

Ray Brescia

Ray Brescia is a Professor of Law at Albany Law School and author of the forthcoming book, “The Private Is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism.”

The Dictatorship

House Republicans caved — and changed the politics of government shutdowns

Published

15 hours ago

May 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

May. 3, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

In March 2025, 10 Senate Democrats voted to advance a government funding bill and avoid a government shutdown. Responding to furious Democratic voters who felt betrayed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said“a shutdown would be 10 or 20 times worse.” Six months later, seven Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King voted to end a 40-day stalemate. Had the shutdown continued, Sen. Tim Kaine, one of those seven, argued“I do not believe Republicans would have conceded on health care.”

What a difference a few months make.

The House of Representatives suddenly passed a bill to reopen the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday, ending a 76-day funding standoff. The legislation funds all of DHS with two exceptions: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol. Instead, Republicans will fund ICE and CBP separately through the budget reconciliation process, without the cover of Democratic votes.

The shift in shutdown politics may be a function of two circumstances, but neither is changing soon.

After federal immigration agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis this year, Democrats refused to fund ICE without reforms, and they demanded the agency’s funding be dealt with separately from the rest of DHS. In late March, Senate Republicans gave up on waiting for a handful of Democrats to end the filibuster, and they passed by unanimous consent a partial funding bill splitting off ICE, as Democrats demanded. The House dragged its feet for almost a month after that, but gave in Thursday and meekly passed the bill in a voice vote. “Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Schumer crowed.

For the first time, the side precipitating a government shutdown neither had to cave in the end nor suffer a backlash for holding out. It seems that, at least for now, the politics of shutdowns have fundamentally changed.

It should be acknowledged at this point that unlike last year’s shutdown showdowns, this one was over one department and not the whole government. But though the shutdown was more limited, its effects were still visible to voters: Lapses in TSA funding led to long lines at the airport, for instance. And the debate concerned immigration and border security, issues on which Republicans typically poll well. Many of the dynamics at play in this debate, then, should carry over to future government funding fights.

The shift in shutdown politics may be a function of two circumstances, but neither is changing soon. It certainly helps Democrats that congressional Republicans can barely keep their ship afloat. The relationship between Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune is frosty at bestand while Republicans’ narrow House majority would challenge any speaker, Johnson’s tenure has consisted largely of disorganization punctuated by last-minute scrambles to push through must-pass bills. “It’s just been a mess,” one House Republican told MS NOW’s Mychael Schnell. “We haven’t really had any guidance or direction. We’re moving from one fire drill to the next every single week, and then half the time it feels like, why are we even here?”

It also helps that President Donald Trump at this point in his term is less popular than any recent president. A president doesn’t even need high approval ratings to “win” a shutdown: When House Speaker Newt Gingrich led Republicans in shutting down the government in late 1995 when Bill Clinton was president, Clinton’s approval was around 50%. When Sen. Ted Cruz and a handful of other GOP senators encouraged the House to shut down the government in 2013, President Barack Obama’s approval was in the low to mid-40s. But in both cases, the party out of the White House ended up caving.

Trump, however, is below 40% in multiple polling averages. His war with Iran and the related spike in gas prices are just the latest errors perpetuating the slow but steady downward march of his numbers. What works in this political environment may not work in opposition to even a president of average popularity. But Trump has work to do before even getting back to average popularity.

The DHS funding bill, like the other appropriations bills earlier this year, runs through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. If Republicans pass their reconciliation bill, ICE and CBP won’t be on the table then; the GOP plans to fund the agencies for three years. And with midterms looming, Congress could punt the next round of funding bills until after votes are cast, as it did in 2024. But with even some Republicans expecting Democrats to flip the House and perhaps the Senate, a postponement could hurt the GOP’s leverage. Regardless of the date for the next funding fight, though, Democrats should reprise and even deepen the resolve they showed in this one.

James Downie is an opinion editor for MS NOW Daily.

The Dictatorship

FEMA and the American people deserve better than Trump’s political lackeys

Published

15 hours ago

May 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

May. 3, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

Though President Donald Trump has not carried out his threat to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency, his administration has systematically weakened it during his second term. He has hollowed out its workforce, pushed out experienced staff in favor of political lackeys, dismantled preparedness programs and undermined the agency’s ability to respond when Americans need it most. Last spring, the administration announced that it had canceled billions of dollars worth of key mitigation programs that helped communities become more resilient to the effects of floods, hurricanes and other disasters.

More than 5,000 employees have left or been pushed out of FEMA since the beginning of the second Trump administration.

The elimination of those mitigation projects shifted risk onto states and local governments that lack the resources to pay for them themselves. More than 5,000 employees have left or been pushed out of FEMA since the beginning of the second Trump administration, worsening an already severe staffing shortage. Now reports suggest the Trump administration is considering even deeper workforce cuts — a highly dangerous proposal with the start of hurricane season less than a month away.

But just as worrisome as qualified people being pushed out of FEMA is unqualified people being brought in. Gregg Phillips, whom Trump appointed associate administrator of the Office of Response and Recovery in December, holds one of the most powerful positions at FEMA. It’s his job to lead the federal government’s frontline response to hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires and other disasters. Because lives are on the line during such emergencies, the role ought to be filled by someone with relevant experience who has demonstrated a commitment to public safety, as well as has sound judgment and a steady hand. Unfortunately, it was clear before Phillips took his position that he lacks all those qualifications.

Phillips has no background in emergency management. He built his career as a political operativerising through Republican politics in Mississippi and Texas, where his time in state government was marked by controversy and ethics concerns. He later gained national prominence by promoting conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

Not only has he demonstrated a lack of commitment to public safety, he has encouraged heinous political violence. He has said former President Joe Biden “deserves to die,” and he has urged Americans to “learn to shoot” migrants who are “coming here to kill you.”

And then there’s the truly bizarre. Phillips has said he’s experienced teleportation on multiple occasions and that he was once teleported 50 miles away to a Waffle House in Georgia. Reportedly, Phillips has quarreled with Trump’s social media platform, which he has accused of suppressing posts about his teleportation claims.

With that single appointment at FEMA, the Trump administration’s lack of seriousness about its duty to protect Americans was exposed.

With that single appointment at FEMA, the Trump administration’s lack of seriousness about its duty to protect Americans was exposed. However, Phillips is not the root of the problem at FEMA; he is just a recent example of it.

Nearly half the agency’s top positions remain vacantand Trump has not nominated a permanent, Senate-confirmed FEMA administrator since he was inaugurated. Reports indicate he may nominate Cameron Hamilton, who ran FEMA in early 2025 until he was fired by Kristi Noem. But Hamilton does not have the necessary qualifications or experience to lead the agency.

Neither does Karen Evans, FEMA’s third acting administrator in a year who currently serves in two senior roles — administrator and chief of staff. Saddling an unqualified person with two important positions at the agency is more evidence of how Trump has deprioritized FEMA and its leadership. FEMA also does not have leadership in its southern regional officeswhich assist the states that traditionally see the most destruction from hurricanes.

In addition to all the above, there are growing concerns that disaster response is being politicized. The rate at which Trump has approved major disaster declarations has varied sharply by statewith Republican-led states receiving much more FEMA assistance than those led by Democrats. In some cases, Trump has denied aid to Democratic-led states even after federal assessments showed communities qualified for help.

Taken together, the Trump administration’s actions have left FEMA and communities less prepared than they have been in a generation. In any other administration, FEMA would by now have a permanent administrator, its leadership ranks filled and a reserve workforce under contract and ready to deploy. As hurricane season approaches, the stakes could not be higher.

If FEMA is to be functional and ready for disasters in the coming months, the Trump administration must course correct and stop playing around with the nation’s lead disaster response agency. To put it back on course, the administration must rebuild FEMA’s workforce, fill vacancies with experienced leaders, restore preparedness programs and ensure that disaster assistance is delivered based on need — not politics. When disaster strikes, Americans should not pay the price for an administration that refuses to take its responsibilities seriously.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat representing Mississippi’s 2nd congressional district is the ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

The Dictatorship

What Hegseth’s defensive testimony revealed about his unsuitability for his role

Published

15 hours ago

May 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

May. 3, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

ByJeff McCausland

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s testimony to the House and Senate Armed Services committees this week was his first appearance before Congress since U.S. military action began against Iran.

So far, this conflict has resulted in the deaths of 14 American service members, including one whose death was not combat-related, and a reported cost of over $25 billion. These hearings were originally scheduled as a routine review of the administration’s proposed $1.45 trillion Pentagon budget for fiscal 2027 but ended up being the first opportunity lawmakers had to question Hegseth about the war.

The testimony was disturbing from the onset for his combative and argumentative style, as he immediately lashed out at lawmakers from both parties.

But this was not “routine” and was a critical moment for the nation’s security. The American people are threatened by an ongoing conflict that could easily escalate and is already having a dramatic effect on the global economy. The nation is potentially facing its greatest energy crisis in history, and Hegseth’s testimony cast doubt on his fitness for the position of secretary of defense.

The testimony was disturbing from the onset for his combative and argumentative style, as he immediately lashed out at lawmakers from both parties. Hegseth began the hearing with a formal statement that argued “the biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless, and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans.”

This was hardly a serious effort to demonstrate his understanding of defense economics or elicit support from members of Congress concerned that the proposed massive Pentagon budget — a 45% increase over 2026 — would have serious implications for the nation’s debt, which already exceeds $39 trillion. If enacted, this budget would expand the force by 44,000 troops, provide significant pay raises and boost procurement of new ships, aircraft, and weapons by 76%. Hegseth further deferred nearly every question about individual program costs.

He maintained this aggressive fashion throughout the five-hour House hearing, a stark contrast to the calm, professional responses by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine. At one point the House Armed Services Committee chairman halted the proceedings and urged Hegseth to show more respect to committee members. (Party shouldn’t matter here, but the chairman is a Republican.)

Meanwhile, Hegseth’s strategic analysis of the Iran war was questionable at best. Last June he said that strikes against Iran, conducted in conjunction with Israel (Operation Midnight Hammer) had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilitiesdespite media reports suggesting evidence to the contrary. Questioned about this obvious inconsistency during the hearing, the secretary stated that the facilities had been destroyed but that Iran still had “nuclear ambitions.”

This statement clearly undercuts President Donald Trump’s assertion that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States that allowed him, as commander-in-chief, to order an attack without congressional authorization. Oddly, both Secretary of State Marco Rubio as well as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also have said since the war began that Iran was not enriching uranium when U.S. forces attacked in February. If that is the case, Iran did not pose an imminent threat and this conflict is a war of choice and not a war of necessity.

The Trump administration has also argued that one of the primary goals of this conflict is to ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. It is difficult to believe that a country’s nuclear ambitions could be permanently eliminated by military force alone. Such a change in a nation’s defense policy would require regime change.

During his testimony, Hegseth also said the United States is “winning” this war, apparently failing to understand that a successful strategy is more than a target list.

During his testimony, Hegseth also said the United States is “winning” this war, apparently failing to understand that a successful strategy is more than a target list. On April 8 he stated that “Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory” that by any measure had “decimated Iran’s military and rendered it combat ineffective for years to come.”

Unfortunately, many reports suggest Iran maintains significant military capabilities, possibly as much as 60% of its missile launchers and a substantial drone arsenal. Since the U.S. attack, Tehran has also seized control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s supreme leader recently declared Tehran’s intent to retain control over shipping passing through the strait as well as maintaining its nuclear program.

Pete Hegseth is the 29th man to hold the position of secretary of defense. Three previous secretaries were retired senior military officers. This included Gen. George Marshall, who played a significant role in America’s victory in World War II and was the author of the “Marshall Plan” for European recovery. Others had been leaders of major corporations, members of Congress or CIA director. Some, like William Perry or James Schlesinger, had significant scientific backgrounds in nuclear matters.

Many secretaries were successful in this role. Others, such as Robert McNamara, were not. But all were highly qualified for what may be the most difficult job on the planet next to being president of the United States. Based on their background and experience, they were prepared to tell truth to power and provide presidents with frank counsel even when that was difficult.

Sadly, Hegseth has once again proven that he is totally unprepared and ill-suited for the role of secretary of defense. He demonstrated this during the “Signalgate” scandal when his use of unclassified communications risked placing American military personnel in harm’s way. Other examples of his poor judgment and problematic tenure include his firing of more than two dozen senior officers without reason, and these actions have been questioned by both Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Many were female or minorities, and it is widely believed that was why they were forced into early retirement. He also delivered an embarrassing speech to several hundred general officers hastily summoned to Quantico; and portrayed U.S. action against Iran in religious terms, even describing it as an “American crusade.”

Even the most loyal supporter of President Donald Trump must look at Hegseth’s record and agree that he is in over his head. He was selected for this critical post not for his expertise but, rather, for his fealty to Trump. But our nation is at a dangerous moment in its history. Amid a war with Iran, ongoing war in Ukraine and the rising threat of China, we can ill-afford incompetence in the Pentagon leadership.

But that is what we have because, at a time of war, Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s testimony was not intended for Congress — or even the American people. It was intended for an audience of one.

Jeff McCausland

Jeff McCausland, a retired Army colonel, is a visiting professor at Dickinson College. A former dean of the U.S. Army War College, he commanded a battalion in combat and was later a member of the National Security Council. He is the author of”Battle Tested! Gettysburg Leadership Lessons.”