Trump Officials Face Backlash for Citing White Supremacist Arguments in Push to End Birthright Citizenship
The administration of President Donald Trump is facing a new wave of criticism after legal scholars and advocates accused government lawyers of leaning on arguments rooted in white supremacist and anti-Chinese racism in their bid to narrow birthright citizenship.
At the center of the dispute is the administration’s effort to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause, which says that all persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. In its Supreme Court filings, the administration argues that this protection does not extend to children of people in the country unlawfully or only temporarily, and contends that American authorities have been applying the clause too broadly for generations. The government’s March reply brief says children of “temporarily present or illegal aliens” are not guaranteed U.S. citizenship under either the Constitution or federal law.
The Washington Post reported that the administration’s case revives the thinking of Alexander Porter Morse, Francis Wharton and George D. Collins, late 19th-century figures whose efforts to restrict citizenship were tied to anti-Black and anti-Chinese exclusion. The report notes that Morse opposed birthright citizenship and also pushed to limit the Reconstruction Amendments, while Wharton sought legal theories that would deny citizenship to children of Chinese immigrants. Collins, in the era of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, argued in language openly hostile to extending full citizenship to Chinese Americans.
The historical echo matters because Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898, is the Supreme Court precedent that firmly established birthright citizenship for nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, with narrow exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats. Reuters reported that many legal experts view the administration’s attempt to revisit that precedent as an uphill battle, given the text of the 14th Amendment and more than a century of settled practice. University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost told Reuters that “Every single method and source of constitutional interpretation confirms that it applies to everyone born in the United States with extremely narrow common law exceptions.”
Opponents of Trump’s order have gone further, arguing that the administration is not simply revisiting old legal scholarship but recycling arguments the Supreme Court already rejected when anti-Chinese prejudice ran high. In an amicus brief filed by the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance, lawyers wrote that Wharton, Morse and Collins “lost” in Wong Kim Ark and that their arguments were “built on a racist foundation.” That brief says the government now relies on the approach of Wharton and Morse and recycles the same arguments Collins made more than a century ago.
Other amici warned that the consequences of overturning or narrowing birthright citizenship would reach far beyond immigration politics. The American Bar Association told the court that birthright citizenship has long provided a “clear, simple, easily administered rule,” and warned that abandoning it would sow chaos across the legal system, including public benefits, criminal defense, elections, education, and identity documents. Reuters also reported that some estimates put the number of babies affected at as many as 250,000 a year if the administration prevails.
The White House has defended its position. According to The Washington Post, when asked about relying on Morse and related authorities, the administration pointed to its brief and said the Supreme Court has cited their work in other contexts. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the case is about restoring citizenship to what the administration calls its “original public meaning.”
