You Can’t Just Erase the 14th Amendment, Mr. Trump


Let’s talk straight: Donald Trump cannot get rid of birthright citizenship with the stroke of a pen. No matter how confident he sounds or how many people cheer at his rallies, he doesn’t have that kind of power.

But here we are again. Trump’s back in office, and he’s already signed Executive Order 14160, trying to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to babies born here if their parents are undocumented or just visiting. That’s not just a bad idea—it’s flat-out unconstitutional (Trump).

This isn’t new. Trump talked about doing this back in 2018 too. He even said, “Everybody thought you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t.” Well… guess what? You do (Axios).

The 14th Amendment couldn’t be more clear:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, sec. 1)

This was added after the Civil War to make sure that formerly enslaved people and their kids were recognized as full citizens. It was meant to stop the government from picking and choosing who counts as American.

In 1898, the Supreme Court made it crystal clear in United States v. Wong Kim Ark: If you’re born here, you’re a citizen. Doesn’t matter if your parents are citizens or not, unless they’re foreign diplomats or enemy soldiers (Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649). So no, being undocumented doesn’t cancel your kid’s citizenship. That’s been settled for 125 years.

Here’s the thing: presidents can’t just rewrite the Constitution. Executive orders are like memos for federal agencies. They tell government departments how to do their jobs—but they can’t make new laws or cancel old ones. Trump might act like he can rewrite the Constitution with a Sharpie, but legally, he can’t. Even his own lawyers knew this back in 2018. They admitted it would take a constitutional amendment (Axios).

The Supreme Court’s been clear on this too. In Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), the justices ruled the government can’t just yank your citizenship without your consent (387 U.S. 253). If Congress can’t do that, what makes Trump think he can?

If Trump really wanted to kill birthright citizenship the legal way, here’s what it would take: First, he’d need two-thirds of Congress to vote for a constitutional amendment. Then he’d have to get three-fourths of all state legislatures—38 out of 50—to approve it. Then it would have to survive legal challenges, and believe me, people would sue the second it passed.

That’s not happening. The country is way too divided for that kind of support, and even conservative legal scholars admit this would be a legal mountain to climb. And just so you know—it can’t apply retroactively. You can’t go back and say someone born in 2007 isn’t a citizen anymore. That would break the Ex Post Facto Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 9) and violate due process (U.S. Const. amend. V).

Let’s imagine the worst-case scenario where Trump actually pulls this off. Millions of people could suddenly become stateless—born here but no longer recognized as American citizens. They’d lose all their rights: no voting, no passports, no legal protection. Families would be torn apart, with some members citizens and others not. And worst of all, the government could start deciding who gets to “count” as American based on politics. That’s not democracy. That’s authoritarianism.

Trump wants the power to decide who’s American. But that’s not how this country works. The Constitution decides. The people decide.

The 14th Amendment isn’t a loophole. It’s a promise that you’re a citizen if you’re born here. That’s it. End of story. If Trump—or anyone—tries to tear that down with a signature, it’s on us to push back, speak up, and defend the rights that make this country what it is.

Works Cited:

Axios. “Trump Plans to End Birthright Citizenship with Executive Order.” Axios, 30 Oct. 2018, www.axios.com/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order.

Pengelly, Martin. “Trump to End Birthright Citizenship for Children of Undocumented Immigrants.” The Guardian, 31 May 2023, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/31/trump-end-birthright-citizenship-day-one.

Trump, Donald J. Executive Order 14160: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. White House, 20 Jan. 2025. www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/20/executive-order-14160.

United States Supreme Court. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. 1898.

United States Supreme Court. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253. 1967.

U.S. Constitution. Amendment XIV, Section 1.
U.S. Constitution. Amendment V.
U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 9.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When Duty Collided with Conscience

Image
On July 1, 2026, Air Force Major Jason Watson made a decision that will likely define the rest of his military career. While wearing his Air Force service uniform, he stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol holding a sign calling for the impeachment, conviction, and removal of President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. He also publicly criticized the administration's military actions, saying he believed they were unconstitutional. By his own statements, Watson believed he had a moral duty to speak out. He knew there would probably be consequences, but he chose to protest anyway as an act of civil disobedience. One thing that has confused a lot of people is why he was arrested. Some have said he had permission to be there and then somehow lost it. That's not exactly what happened. Representative Al Green escorted Watson onto the House steps. Under Capitol rules, demonstrations are allowed there only under certain conditions, including when a member of Congres...
Read more

Trump’s Iran Strikes: Unconstitutional, Dangerous, and a Christian Call for Accountability

Donald Trump has proven to be a dangerously impulsive leader, and his recent actions reveal a pattern of narcissistic decision-making that puts the country and the world at risk. From unilateral military strikes to flouting constitutional processes, his behavior demonstrates a disregard for law, accountability, and the perspectives of allies. Leadership of this magnitude demands wisdom, restraint, and a commitment to the rule of law — qualities Trump has repeatedly shown he cannot exercise responsibly. For the safety and stability of the nation, he must be removed from the office of the President of the United States as quickly as possible, along with enablers like JD Vance and Mike Johnson, whose support empowers these reckless tendencies. Donald Trump — in the name of the United States — recently launched military strikes against Iran, escalating a conflict that already threatens global stability and regional security. These actions were taken without formal authorization from Congre...
Read more

DHS’s Subpoena Campaign Threatens First Amendment Freedoms

In a constitutional federal representative democracy like the USA, government officials are supposed to protect the rights of the people, not intimidate them. Yet the Department of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Secretary Kristi Noem, is aggressively trying to identify Americans who criticize ICE and its enforcement actions. This is not just an overreach; it is a direct attack on the First Amendment. DHS has issued hundreds of administrative subpoenas to major tech platforms, including Google, Meta, Reddit, and Discord, demanding the names, email addresses, and other identifying information of users who post critical content about ICE¹. These subpoenas do not require prior judicial approval, allowing the agency to bypass the usual legal safeguards and target critics with alarming impunity². This is an abuse of bureaucratic power, and it chills dissent. First Amendment law clearly protects both speech and the anonymity of speakers. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that anon...
Read more