Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Orders Are an ‘Un‑American Attack’

Opinion

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Orders Are an ‘Un‑American Attack’

US citizens and American people

Getty Images

The Trump Administration’s latest executive orders targeting birthright citizenship are not just legally dubious—they are a direct challenge to the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the millions of Americans whose citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Less than six weeks after the Court reaffirmed in Trump v. Barbara that “birthright citizenship is the law of the land,” the administration has returned with new orders designed to narrow who counts as American. legal experts view these actions as an attempt to “override constitutional guarantees” through executive fiat, despite the Court’s clear ruling.


This moment demands clarity: birthright citizenship is not a policy preference. It is a constitutional promise. And when a president attempts to rewrite that promise unilaterally, the threat is not theoretical—it is immediate, targeted, and deeply destabilizing.

Civil‑rights organizations have responded with urgency. Voto Latino called the orders “a direct assault on the Fourteenth Amendment,” and President and CEO María Teresa Kumar warned, “This is not about policy. This is about power — and about stripping millions of Americans of their constitutional rights.” Executive Director Beatriz Lopez added that the orders represent “a dangerous attempt to undermine the very foundation of American citizenship,” noting that Latino families and mixed‑status households would bear the brunt of the harm.

The Hispanic Federation issued one of the strongest rebukes. Frankie Miranda, its President and CEO, said the administration had shown “their obstinate efforts to violate the U.S. Constitution, undermine immigrant communities, target people of color, and disregard separation of powers.” He reminded the public that the Supreme Court had already rejected the administration’s previous attempt, stating, “Birthright citizenship is the law of the land, and no executive order can overturn a right so directly embedded within the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Miranda also highlighted the cruelty of singling out U.S. territories—especially Puerto Rico—in these orders. “Families in U.S. territories…are uniquely and cruelly singled out in this latest attack, threatening millions of Americans who already face their unique set of challenges.” His warning underscores a truth often ignored in national debates: attacks on citizenship do not fall evenly. They fall hardest on communities of color, immigrant families, and Americans living in territories whose political power is already constrained.

Constitutional scholars see little legal path forward for these orders. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has been “consistently upheld for more than a century,” and the Court’s recent ruling leaves “little room for reinterpretation.” Yet the administration’s persistence reveals something deeper than a legal strategy—it reveals a political project aimed at redefining who belongs in America.

That project must be confronted directly. As Miranda put it, “We are confident that these orders will not survive judicial scrutiny,” but litigation alone is not enough. He urged Congress to “reassert its authority to push back on these un‑American attacks.” Voto Latino echoed that call, insisting that lawmakers must defend the Constitution and the communities targeted by these unlawful orders.

The fight over birthright citizenship is no longer a hypothetical debate or a fringe argument. It is now a test of whether the nation will uphold one of its most fundamental guarantees: that all people born on U.S. soil are equal in their citizenship, equal in their rights, and equal in their belonging. The administration’s latest orders challenge that principle at its core. The response must be as strong as the threat—rooted in law, history, and the lived reality of the Americans whose citizenship is not up for negotiation.

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Orders Are an ‘Un‑American Attack’ was first published by the Latino News Network and republished with permission.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.


Read More

Close up of a judge hammering a gavel

Investigations, indictments, dismissals, convictions: what each means and the questions to ask before judging claims of political weaponization of the law.

Chris Collins/Getty Images

Just the Facts: Trump, DOJ and the Legal Process

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


The legal battles involving the Trump administration have become a constant feature of American politics and governance. Supporters often argue that many lawsuits and investigations are politically motivated attempts to block the administration's agenda. Critics contend that certain actions by the administration and the Department of Justice are themselves politically motivated or represent an improper use of government power.

Keep ReadingShow less
gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less