Politics
Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship could be decided by the Supreme Court
Donald Trump’s team is crafting an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, a monumental move the president-elect’s allies say is a key step in their long-term strategy: getting the issue before the Supreme Court.
The effect of Trump’s order would be to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants and short-term visitors to the U.S. from the right to citizenship by birth that is established under the 14th Amendment. And while there are few details on what exactly he would do and how sweeping the action would be, immigration restrictionists say Trump could do several things, including directing the State Department to refuse to issue passports to children without proof of the parents’ immigration status or the Social Security Administration to withhold Social Security numbers.
He could also direct agencies providing welfare and public benefits to U.S. citizens to deny these benefits to those claiming birthright citizenship, whose parents are in the country illegally. Details of the plan remain unclear, but it would deliver on a promise Trump has made over his entire political career: to restrict birthright citizenship.
Implementation would be no easy feat, but the Trump administration likely wouldn’t get far anyway — at least at first. Any move Trump makes to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented parents will be immediately challenged by pro-immigration groups and civil rights organizations. And conservative immigration groups are optimistic that the issue could eventually wind up before the nation’s highest court, which they hope will rule in their favor.
“What will happen is, the government will get sued, and it’ll go up to the Supreme Court, and we’ll finally get a final decision on this issue,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal and judicial studies fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “The last case on this was 1898, so it’s a very long time ago. And I actually think when the Supreme Court looks at this, they will realize and uphold what Trump does.”
Already, Trump’s talk of ending birthright citizenship is setting the stage for one of the first major legal battles of his second term. And his effort could be one of his first major actions to drastically reshape the immigration system upon returning to office.
When asked about the plans, Trump’s transition team referred Blue Light News to the president-elect’s comments during his interview with NBC News last weekend.
The president-elect has repeatedly said he plans to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. on Day One — reiterating this promise during the interview that aired Sunday — while providing no details about how he would get around the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Birthright citizenship stems from the year after the Civil War ended when Congress wanted to ensure that children of formerly enslaved people were granted U.S. citizenship. The amendment reads that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The accepted interpretation today, backed by a multitude of legal scholars on both sides of the political aisle, is that a child born in the United States is automatically a citizen, even if the parents do not have legal status (this excludes foreign diplomats working in the country).
But conservative immigration groups have argued that this should not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants because of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language, which they argue has been misinterpreted.
The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the question, but that could change if the high court takes up any potential legal challenges. The last time justices examined the issue was during an 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, when the court ruled that a man born in San Francisco to parents from China — who were lawfully admitted into the country — was a U.S. citizen. Restrictionists interpret this ruling to mean that only those residing in the U.S. with permission meet the 14th Amendment requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Immigration to the U.S. has surged in recent years, with DHS estimating that 11 million people are in the U.S. without legal authorization. Trump used fears over illegal immigration throughout the 2024 presidential campaign, both with his base and voters overall, and both Democratic and Republican state leaders have struggled to manage the influx of migrants coming to their states. When Trump said his administration may seek to end birthright citizenship in 2018, a Pew Research Center analysis of government data found that about 250,000 babies were born to undocumented immigrants in 2016, a decline from the early 2000s.
“It’ll be good to get it back in front of the Supreme Court, have it relitigated,” said Michael Hough, director of federal relations at NumbersUSA, a group that works to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. “The intention wasn’t for the system we have now, and the urgency to is that, whatever number you accept — 10 million, 15 million illegal immigrants come across — well, all the children that they’re having are going to become citizens of the United States.”
While there’s no guarantee the Supreme Court will back restrictionists’ interpretation of the 14th Amendment, conservatives hope the bench, filled with three Trump-appointed justices, would restore what they view as the intended meaning. And they’re bracing for a potentially yearslong battle in the courts to get that answer.
“In the end, this is going to be a long-term process. It’s probably one that will have to extend into the [JD] Vance administration,” said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a restrictionist group. “I mean, this is not going to be all resolved in the first 100 days.”
During Trump’s interview Sunday — in the same breath as vowing to end birthright citizenship — the president-elect also suggested he’d look for ways to allow people brought to the U.S. illegally as children to stay in the country. He tried to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program protecting them from deportation during his first term, but the Supreme Court blocked that effort.
Immigration advocates say the interview shows how the incoming president’s stance on immigration is riddled with contradictions. Over the last year, pro-immigration groups have been preparing for a second Trump administration’s efforts to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, analyzing Trump’s proposals, drafting legal briefs, coordinating messages and organizing aid for immigrants and asylum-seekers — and they don’t buy the idea that Trump is looking for compromise.
“We take Trump at his word and his track record,” said Beatriz Lopez, co-executive director of the Immigration Hub. “We recognize this set-up: It’s Lucy and the football where citizenship for Dreamers is a possibility if Democrats are willing to change the constitution to end birthright citizenship and deport the parents of Dreamers and millions of other undocumented people. That’s not a compromise; that’s a ransom letter.”
Top Democrats are using 2026 as a launching pad for potential 2028 presidential runs.
From progressive Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to the more moderate Pete Buttigieg and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Democrats have sought to shape their party by endorsing in contested primaries this year. They’ve traveled the country to raise their own profiles and elevate candidates they see as the future of the party.
Their strategies have not always been successful — but they have been revealing: Some endorsed against incumbents based on generational or ideological differences. Some weighed in early to give candidates credence, while others waited until the last minute to help them close out the race. And some have focused on purple districts and other competitive races that could determine control of Congress in the fall.
“If you’re thinking about running for president, you need allies,” said Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist whose firm works with House and Senate campaigns across the country. “The more that you’re out there, trying to get people elected and making a meaningful difference, voters are going to remember that.”
Appearing with candidates on the campaign trail is an opportunity for potential 2028 candidates to create social media buzz, Nellis noted. Traveling gives them opportunities to connect with donors and elected officials across the country who might be helpful for a future presidential run and pressure test how messages work in various parts of the country. For those not up for an election of their own this year, it’s also a way to stay relevant.
Some potential presidential candidates have been particularly prolific, while others have been more cautious or stuck to their home states, according to a Blue Light News review of endorsements in House, Senate and gubernatorial races. And a handful mostly stayed out of this year’s primaries.
The most prolific endorsers
Few members of Congress threw out as many endorsements as Khanna.
The California representative, who has said he is “seriously considering” running for president in 2028, endorsed in more than a dozen races, often serving as one of the earliest national backers of progressive candidates such as Kat Abughazaleh in Illinois’ 9th District and Analilia Mejia in New Jersey’s 11th District. Abughazaleh lost her race, while Mejia won.
Khanna also backed left-wing candidates that other national progressives shied away from, most notably democratic socialist state Rep. Francesca Hong in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race.
His record is mixed. Hong lost and former Maine Senate Democratic nominee Graham Platner, who Khanna stood by despite a series of controversies, had to drop out after winning a primary but facing an allegation of sexual assault, which he denies — at which point Khanna, like many others, withdrew his endorsement.
Khanna told Blue Light News he likes “endorsing early when an insurgent candidate is a bit of a longshot because that is when they need the endorsement most.” He looks for candidates who support Medicare for All and taxing billionaires and are opposed to foreign wars.
“My philosophy is to give those who are outsiders and have to scrape their way in — like I had to — a fair shot,” he said in a text message.
Ocasio-Cortez also endorsed a large slate of progressive candidates, but she’s been more selective than Khanna — a difference in approach that’s sparked some infighting within the Bernie Sanders wing of the progressive movement.
Critics have argued she’s played it too safe. But her selectivity has also meant she avoided high-profile stumbles.
Ocasio-Cortez has positioned herself as more of a closer this cycle. In California’s 22nd District, a battleground in the Central Valley, Khanna endorsed progressive professor Randy Villegas last September, while Ocasio-Cortez dropped her endorsement in May — about a month before the primary. Villegas ultimately defeated a moderate lawmaker backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and is among the progressives who will now try to knock off an incumbent Republican in November.
Ocasio-Cortez actively campaigned for progressives in several contested battleground primaries, rallying with Sam Forstag in Montana and alongside Sanders with Abdul El-Sayed, who narrowly won the Democratic Senate nomination in Michigan.
She recently threw her support behind Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who faces a primary challenge from Rep. Seth Moulton next week.
The other most frequent endorser among potential Democratic 2028ers this cycle played in a different lane. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a moderate, has been active on the campaign trail, visiting most presidential battleground states and endorsing in key Senate primaries, including Rep. Angie Craig in Minnesota’s Democratic Senate primary — which she lost to progressive Peggy Flanagan — and state Rep. Josh Turek in Iowa’s Democratic Senate primary, which he won.
Buttigieg, who has said he is “more inclined than not” to run for president again in 2028, has also notched endorsement wins with Rebecca Cooke in Wisconsin’s battleground 3rd District and former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin in Connecticut, who defeated incumbent Rep. John Larson earlier this month.
Most governors stuck close to home
Governors eyeing White House runs kept their endorsements closer to home, largely trying to play kingmaker within state lines as they face their own reelection fights.
The local focus allows them to flex their influence while avoiding criticism for nationalizing their own states’ politics. And they’ve campaigned aggressively for their chosen candidates — political power plays that not only strengthen their standing on home turf but could also serve as springboards for national bids.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker pumped $10 million into a super PAC supporting his lieutenant governor, Juliana Stratton, in the contentious Senate primary to replace retiring Sen. Dick Durbin, and appeared alongside her on the campaign trail. He described the race as “personal” to him; Stratton won by 7 points.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro expended significant political capital in one of Democrats’ top House targets in his state, helping recruit longtime ally and firefighter union chief Bob Brooks into the race against GOP Rep. Ryan Mackenzie in the state’s swingy 7th District and then working to elevate him out of a four-way primary. Shapiro fundraised for Brooks, cut an ad for him and joined him on the stump ahead of Election Day; Brooks won by nearly 20 points.
Shapiro was also one of a handful of Democratic attorneys-general-turned-governors who backed Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser in his gubernatorial primary against Sen. Michael Bennet. Weiser won by 14 points.
In Maryland, Gov. Wes Moore backed state Del. Adrian Boafo in the crowded race to replace retiring Rep. Steny Hoyer and boosted Rep. April McClain Delaney in her bruising primary against former Rep. David Trone — including recording a robocall on her behalf. An adviser to Moore said the governor had preexisting relationships with both candidates he endorsed, and that he prioritizes local and in-state races as he seeks to make endorsement decisions that will benefit his constituents.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer also stuck to her state, only really playing in Michigan’s high-profile Senate race. She endorsed Rep. Haley Stevens in the final stretch of the race, although she wasn’t active on the campaign trail in the same way Pritzker was for Stratton or Shapiro for Brooks.
Disagreements among moderates
Even among candidates occupying a more centrist lane heading into 2028, there was room for disagreement.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former national security official, endorsed retired Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam, a moderate in Michigan’s 7th district, which she previously represented. Several Democrats had hoped she’d back former foreign service officer Bridget Brink, a fellow moderate — and as they split the centrist vote, progressive William Lawrence ascended to the nomination in the toss-up district instead.
A person familiar with Slotkin’s thinking, granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal deliberations, said that she connected better with Maasdam and saw him as a stronger general election candidate.
The person also acknowledged that Slotkin’s decision to wait to issue her endorsement until three weeks before the primary didn’t leave enough time for voters and party leaders to coalesce around Maasdam.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) rolled out a slate of endorsements of veteran candidates, mostly for the general election, but has backed a range of other Democrats in primaries. That includes DCCC-backed political novice Marlene Galan-Woods in his home state, only for her to lose the primary in Arizona’s 1st District.
“As Navy combat veteran and former NASA astronaut, Mark Kelly knows the country is best served by leaders who represent their communities and bring a range of different backgrounds and experiences to the job. It’s why he’s endorsed candidates in competitive primaries and campaigned for Democrats up and down the ballot,” Kelly spokesperson Marisol Samayoa said.
In next week’s primary in New Hampshire’s 1st District, Kelly is supporting Stefany Shaheen, the daughter of his Senate colleague Jeanne Shaheen, praising her as a “fearless leader” who would stand up to President Donald Trump.
New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill also went on a recent endorsement spree focused on military veterans. But she’s backing Maura Sullivan in the race against Shaheen next week, along with Rep. Seth Moulton in his primary against Sen. Ed Markey, who has gotten backing from progressives including Ocasio-Cortez.
“The fight isn’t moderates versus DSA candidates,” Sherrill told POLITICO earlier this month. “The fight is if we are going to have strong people in the Democratic Party that are going to actually make change to make people’s lives better, or people who you can just expect more of the same.”
The ones who (mostly) sat it out
Not every potential presidential candidate was eager to endorse this cycle.
Even after working to redraw boundaries in his home state to create more safely blue seats, California Gov. Gavin Newsom stayed out of the federal races — and the contest to succeed him. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear endorsed after primaries in his home state were complete. Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who is considering his own White House bid, also eschewed endorsements.
And Kamala Harris declined to weigh in on the majority of competitive primaries because of her high profile, according to a person familiar with her thinking who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The exceptions were “based on the closeness” of the former vice president’s relationships with the people she did endorse.
Harris recorded a robocall for Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Texas Senate primary before Crockett eventually lost to James Talarico. She backed Del. Stacey Plaskett ahead of her U.S. Virgin Islands’ gubernatorial primary victory earlier this month. She has also endorsed Dan Koh in next week’s primary for Massachusetts’ 6th District.
All three candidates have close ties to Harris. Crockett served as co-chair of Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign, Plaskett endorsed Harris when she first ran for president in the 2020 primary, and Koh is a former Biden administration official.
Iowa’s last Democrat on how he can win in Trump country
lead image
Alaska GOP Sen. Dan S. Sullivan can’t shake his same-name challenger.
Retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan punched a ticket out of the state’s top-four, all-party primary early Wednesday morning. He could now play spoiler in a high-stakes Senate clash between the Republican senator and former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola that could help swing control of the upper chamber.
Republicans fought and failed to keep Dan J. Sullivan off the primary ballot, arguing he was a Democratic plant designed to boost Peltola. Both Dan J. Sullivan and Peltola’s campaign have denied any coordination.
The senator’s allies have already taken steps to mitigate the second Sullivan’s potential vote siphoning, in some cases running ads using the senator’s middle initial to help differentiate between the same-named candidates.
Supporters of the state’s ranked-choice voting system, which kicks in for the general election, argue the process helps curtail the spoiler effect. But the presence of other candidates could still skew the results of the battleground race. Outside groups flooded the primary with more than $2 million to boost myriad fringe candidates — and could do so again ahead of November.
It’s not smooth sailing for Peltola, either, as she wages an uphill battle to flip a red seat in a state President Donald Trump won by 13 percentage points in 2024. She recently replaced her campaign manager in a staffing shakeup ahead of the primary, among other internal moves.
- Will Kevin Warsh Squander a Huge Opportunity?
- The Social Security benefit cliff is here. Washington is struggling to wake up.
- The primaries testing Democratic 2028ers
- House GOP leaders under pressure to act on data centers before the midterms
- Lawmakers press Treasury to target Chinese banks over Iran
- House GOP leaders eye quick vote on Senate-passed stopgap
- Senate Democrats urge Netanyahu to stop surge of violence in West Bank
- Pentagon claims to have found ‘hidden’ files on final days of the Afghanistan war
- Iowa’s last Democrat on how he can win in Trump country
- Trump’s trade moves add to GOP’s midterm anxieties
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words