this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
76 points (98.7% liked)

politics

30243 readers
2287 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump has nevertheless spent years condemning what’s known as “birthright citizenship” and vowing to undo it despite the plain language of the Constitution. Indeed, on Inauguration Day 2025, the new Republican president kept one of his uglier campaign promises and issued an executive order designed to gut the constitutional principle and directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize U.S. citizenship for children who do not meet the administration’s new standards.

Not surprisingly, Trump’s radical gambit struggled in the courts, which relied on generations’ worth of legal precedent, but he was undeterred. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, he engaged in direct lobbying in ways Americans hadn’t seen before — sitting in attendance during oral arguments and even publicly demanding “loyalty” from the justices he appointed to the high court.

This plan fell short. Four Republican-appointed justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas — issued dissents in Trump v. Barbara, suggesting Trump could ignore the 14th Amendment by way of an executive order, but this radical view fell one vote shy of a majority.

Two hours later, the president responded by way of his social media platform. His online statement read in its entirety:

The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process. No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!

In other words, as far as Trump is concerned, his defeat at the high court was disappointing, but the setback was temporary. Seizing on the dissent, the Republican sees a new legislative path, in which Congress can simply change the meaning of a constitutional amendment with a bill signed by the president.

That might sound absurd, given how our system of government is supposed to work, but it’s apparently what Trump hopes to accomplish based on the guidance of four Republican-appointed justices.

To that end, there is a bill pending in the House to undo birthright citizenship, which currently has 87 Republican co-sponsors, and a companion measure in the Senate has eight GOP co-sponsors. With the president’s online statement in mind, it’s likely that both bills are poised to get a fresh look from the party’s members and leaders.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

I have a bottle of champagne in the fridge for that very moment.