...
By Dan Gooding and Gabe Whisnant
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
President Donald Trump offered his first public remarks after the Supreme Court heard arguments in a consequential case challenging his restrictions on birthright citizenship.
Trump posted on Truth Social, writing, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”
The post followed oral arguments on the president's executive order seeking to change who the 14th Amendment applies to.
Read More on Politics
Trump earlier became the first sitting U.S. president to observe oral arguments before the nation’s highest court. He left the Supreme Court on Wednesday after spending just over an hour in the courtroom.
Why It Matters
Trump's claim around birthright citizenship has been repeatedly debunked, but he and others critical of the right have long argued that it has been abused. The president's short response to the hearing is unusual compared to his other social media posts about the Supreme Court in recent months, such as his lengthy attacks on the decision to strike down some of his tariffs.
...
What To Know
Trump has claimed before that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship, but as Newsweek has reported previously, this is not true.
In the U.S., birthright citizenship, which gives U.S. citizenship to all children born in the country, became part of the nation’s Constitution in 1868 as an effort to protect recently freed slaves from deportation. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: "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."
Trump targeted this amendment on the first day of his second term, issuing an executive order banning birthright citizenship moving forward, and arguing that this section of the Constitution was outdated. In part, this is because he and others opposed to the sweeping policy believe it to be abused by illegal immigrants.
The idea of automatic citizenship at birth is not a pathway unique to the U.S., however. Countries including Canada, Mexico, and Argentina recognize this principle.
In the Americas, only Chile and Colombia do not grant birthright citizenship, relying instead on jus sanguinis or citizenship based on ancestry rather than place of birth. That policy is also reflected in multiple European, Asian, and African countries.
On Wednesday morning, justices spent much of the roughly two-hour hearing trying to pin down what the Trump administration's policy would be and how it would be enforced, with particular focus on immigrants' allegiance and residency, and whether this would impact the citizenship of their newborns.
What People Are Saying
Arizona Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego, on X: "Birthright citizenship is one of the most clear cut parts of the Constitution. It shouldn’t even be up for debate. But Donald Trump thinks he can decide who counts as American. He’s wrong. If you’re born here, you belong here. That promise is what makes America the greatest country on earth and no president, not even Trump can change that."
Stephen Miller, senior White House adviser on immigration, on X Wednesday: "Congress has passed numerous laws criminalizing, prohibiting, forbidding and barring the entry of unauthorized and inadmissible foreigners. To say that this same class of excluded foreigners — whose very presence here is a crime — when Congress mandated a physical wall to keep them out — have a legal right to birth American Citizens is the gravest and most preposterous of all constitutional abominations."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, during oral arguments: "I get the point thinking about European countries don't have this, or most other countries, many other countries in the world don't have this. I guess I'm not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter, necessarily, although I understand it's a very good point as a policy."
What Happens Next
Oral arguments ended at lunchtime on Wednesday, with the court not expected to issue a decision for some weeks, possibly months.
Update 4/1/26, 1:06 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines