President Donald Trump has intensified his campaign against birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of the 14th Amendment, with fiery posts on Truth Social on May 15, 2025. Labeling the U.S. a “STUPID Country” for maintaining the policy, Trump urged the Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings blocking his executive order to limit citizenship for children born to non-permanent residents. His claim that the amendment was meant only for “the babies of slaves” has ignited fierce debate as the nation awaits a pivotal Supreme Court decision. Here’s a deep dive into Trump’s controversial stance, the legal battle, and what it means for America’s future.
The Executive Order and Legal Roadblocks
On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order seeking to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented immigrants or hold temporary visas (e.g., tourist, student, or work). The order challenges the 14th Amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” Trump argues that children of non-permanent residents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., a view that contradicts long-standing legal precedent.
Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington swiftly blocked the order, issuing nationwide injunctions. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle, a Reagan appointee, called the policy “blatantly unconstitutional,” citing the amendment’s clear language. Appeals courts in San Francisco and Richmond upheld these rulings, and no court has supported Trump’s interpretation.
The Supreme Court, prompted by Trump’s appeal, agreed to hear arguments on May 15, 2025. The case focuses not on the order’s constitutionality but on whether lower courts overreached with nationwide injunctions. A ruling, expected by July 2025, could allow the policy to proceed in some jurisdictions or curb judicial power to block executive actions.
Trump’s Truth Social Tirade
In his Truth Social posts, Trump framed birthright citizenship as a Civil War-era policy to protect children of formerly enslaved people, not a right for modern immigrants. He wrote, “Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens… all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!” He falsely claimed the U.S. is the “only Country in the World” with this policy—35 countries, including Canada, Mexico, and Brazil, offer birthright citizenship, per SCOTUSblog.
Trump’s rhetoric escalated as he called the U.S. a “STUPID Country” for maintaining the policy, alleging it fuels “birth tourism” and benefits “drug cartels.” He emphasized, “The Civil War ended in 1865, the Bill went to Congress in 1866… It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country.” He urged the Supreme Court to reconsider, ending with, “GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.!”
X posts reflect polarized reactions. Supporters like @PatriotVoiceUSA praised Trump for “finally tackling birthright abuse,” while critics like @ImmigrantRights called his remarks “xenophobic and historically illiterate,” citing the amendment’s broader intent.
Legal and Historical Reality
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which denied citizenship to Black Americans. The 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruling clarified that the amendment grants citizenship to nearly all U.S.-born individuals, regardless of parental status. This precedent, reaffirmed in cases like Plyler v. Doe (1982), has been settled law for over a century.
Trump’s claim that the amendment applies only to former slaves is unsupported by historical evidence. Legal scholars, such as Yale Law’s Akhil Reed Amar, argue that the amendment’s text is unambiguous, and an executive order cannot override constitutional guarantees. However, conservative voices, including former Trump attorney John Eastman, contend that the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause excludes children of non-citizens, though courts have rejected this view.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority has raised speculation about a potential shift. During arguments, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited Wong Kim Ark as binding, while conservative Justice Samuel Alito questioned the scope of nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett called the administration’s arguments “novel,” signaling skepticism.
Potential Consequences
If Trump’s order takes effect, it could impact over 150,000 U.S.-born children annually, per Migration Policy Institute estimates. By 2050, 4.7 million individuals could be classified as unauthorized immigrants, risking statelessness or deportation. The ACLU warns of a “cruel” second-class status for U.S.-born children, while supporters argue it deters illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” estimated at 33,000 cases yearly by NBC News.
The case also tests judicial power. Conservative justices have criticized nationwide injunctions, but liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned that limiting them could create a “patchwork” citizenship system, causing legal chaos. A May 2025 Reuters report noted that such a ruling could embolden future executive actions, reshaping immigration policy.
Part of a Broader Agenda
Trump’s push aligns with his aggressive immigration strategy. Since January 2025, his administration has deported thousands to El Salvador’s “mega-jail” under the Alien Enemies Act, bypassing due process, and offered “free flights” with “exit bonuses” to non-citizens. These moves, alongside trade and crime reforms, reflect Trump’s Day One priorities, though they’ve drawn lawsuits from 22 Democratic state attorneys general.
Engaging with the Issue
Trump’s “stupid country” remark and birthright citizenship stance have polarized the public. Supporters see it as a necessary reform; critics view it as unconstitutional and divisive. To navigate this debate:
- Read the Law: Review the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark on Oyez.org to understand the legal foundation.
- Check Facts: Verify claims with sources like NPR or SCOTUSblog, not Truth Social or X posts alone.
- Support Communities: Volunteer with or donate to groups like Immigrant Legal Resource Center to aid affected families.
- Reflect Critically: Weigh the human cost (e.g., statelessness) against policy goals (e.g., immigration control).
The Supreme Court’s decision will shape citizenship and executive power for decades. As Trump’s rhetoric fuels debate, the nation grapples with its identity and values.
