Stephen Miller’s challenge to birthright citizenship could reshape American immigration policy as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on Trump’s Executive Order limiting automatic citizenship rights.
At a Glance
- Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller argues the 14th Amendment was intended for freed slaves, not children of illegal immigrants
- President Trump’s Executive Order would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. without at least one American citizen or lawful permanent resident parent
- The Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15 regarding the constitutionality of Trump’s order
- Miller characterizes current birthright citizenship as a “financial scam” and “national security threat”
- 22 Democratic state attorneys general and immigrant rights advocates have filed challenges to Trump’s order
Miller’s Rising Influence in Trump’s Inner Circle
Stephen Miller has emerged as one of President Trump’s most influential advisers, serving as Deputy Chief of Staff and maintaining significant power in policy decisions. Unlike many officials from Trump’s first term, Miller has not only remained in Trump’s circle but has increased his influence. He first rose to prominence by joining Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, writing speeches and focusing on immigration policies that would become hallmarks of the administration.
Miller’s authority within the administration was highlighted when he effectively ended a debate among top Trump officials regarding military strikes in Yemen. According to reports, Miller simply stated, “as I heard it, the President was clear. Green light,” demonstrating his ability to speak with the President’s authority despite not holding a cabinet-level position.
White House spokesman Steven Cheung noted Miller’s unique ability to “channel President Trump’s message and voice as a speechwriter on the campaign,” explaining his longevity in an administration known for frequent staff turnover. Miller’s involvement in controversial immigration policies continues, including efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans, a measure currently contested in courts.
The Constitutional Battle Over Birthright Citizenship
At the heart of the current debate is the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” For over 150 years, this amendment has been interpreted to grant automatic citizenship to virtually all children born on American soil.
The Trump administration challenges this long-standing interpretation. Trump’s Agenda47 policy platform asserts that “U.S. Citizenship extends only to those both born in AND ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.” This interpretation would exclude children of illegal immigrants and those with only temporary lawful presence in the country.
The administration’s position directly challenges the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are entitled to citizenship. This case has provided the legal foundation for birthright citizenship for over a century. The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on May 15 will determine whether this precedent stands or falls.
Miller’s Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship
Stephen Miller has become the public face of the administration’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship, making both historical and practical arguments against the current interpretation. Miller contends that the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to protect the citizenship rights of freed African American slaves after the Civil War, not to provide automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants or temporary visitors.
Miller describes the current interpretation of birthright citizenship as “the biggest, costliest scam in financial history,” claiming it functions as a magnet for illegal immigration. He argues that allowing automatic citizenship for children of non-citizens enables their entire families to gain access to American welfare benefits, creating financial burdens for taxpayers. Miller further characterizes birthright citizenship as a national security risk, suggesting it could facilitate foreign espionage.
Opposition to Trump’s Executive Order
The executive order faces significant opposition from 22 Democratic State Attorneys General and immigrant rights advocates who have filed legal challenges. These plaintiffs argue that Trump’s order directly violates the 14th Amendment and overturns more than a century of established constitutional interpretation.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin has been particularly vocal in opposing the order, stating that “Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Constitution in the wake of the Civil War, is backed by a long line of Supreme Court precedent and ensures that something as fundamental as American citizenship cannot be turned on or off at the whims of a single man.” This perspective emphasizes the historical continuity of birthright citizenship and frames the executive order as an overreach of presidential authority.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments, the case represents a potential watershed moment in American immigration policy. The Court’s decision will either reaffirm the long-standing principle of birthright citizenship or usher in a new, more restrictive interpretation of who qualifies for automatic citizenship in the United States.
