The Claremont Institute Feed Items

Many times over the last several years, Donald Trump’s political opponents on the Right claimed he was a drag on the Republican Party’s political prospects. This argument was never very plausible. The reversals that congressional Republicans suffered over the last six years (such as losing the House and Senate by narrow margins) were well within the normal range of the vicissitudes of electoral politics. But whatever meager credibility such criticisms may have possessed has now been completely laid to rest by President Trump’s astonishing return to power, bringing with him Republican control of both houses of Congress—a feat accomplished in the face of unprecedented opposition from some of the most powerful forces in American political life. Trump has proven himself to be a potent political force and a boost to the fortunes of his party.

Trump, however, will only be around for four more years. If the American Right is to continue to succeed after he has left the scene, it will have to learn the secrets of his success. This means admitting that Trump’s impressive wins are the fruit not of mere luck, nor even of his extraordinary energy, but of his even more extraordinary political astuteness. As the pollster Patrick Ruffini remarked, simply but profoundly, in an election night X post: “Donald Trump understands what politics is about at a fundamental level.”

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Your Not-So-Lying Eyes | The Roundtable Ep. 254

The captains of the tech industry have rapidly warmed to Trump. But are they sincere? Or is the whole thing just a cynical display of fealty to the new leader, only to be reversed as soon as power changes hands? It’s probably a mix of both—not only across the industry, but sometimes even within a single person.

A helpful test is to ask when a given figure’s rightward lurch occurred. Those that happened after the election are much more likely to be transactional. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Sam Altman of OpenAI—who had previously been openly anti-Trump—seem to epitomize this category. Google’s Sundar Pichai likewise bent the knee, but was giving hostage-video vibes.

As Donald Trump was sworn in as president for the second time, he was surrounded by the men who deplatformed and silenced him four years ago. Google CEO Sundar Pichai banned Trump from YouTube and removed his app, Truth Social, from Google Play. Mark Zuckerberg sat flanked by Republican politicians despite banning Trump on Facebook and Instagram following the January 6 protest at the Capitol.

Whether it’s due to political opportunism or a real change of heart, the tech moguls’ now cozy relationship with Trump is one of necessity. It was easy to censor someone they thought would never become the most powerful man in the country again.

The question of how conservatives should respond to Big Tech’s sudden embrace of Trump is an important one. For too long, conservatives have insisted on purity tests for their allies. This is less about making sure your allies won’t turn on you and more a strange insistence that every convert must be a true believer. The problem is that the Left abandoned this notion a long time ago to their benefit.

Consider what Zuckerberg said when he was on Joe Rogan’s podcast. He’ll be introducing a community notes type of fact-checking system to all Meta platforms, which will significantly reduce the mainstream media’s power over Americans’ free expression via third-party fact-checkers.

Determining citizenship based on a birth certificate alone simplifies things immensely. Unfortunately, we no longer live in a world where that’s sustainable.

President Trump’s executive order interpreting the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” qualifier as not including people here illegally or on nonimmigrant visas may not succeed in changing current practice. In fact, I expect the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, will punt on the issue, pointing to Section 5 of the amendment, which says, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” In other words, a law is required, not an executive order.

But whatever the immediate outcome, the president has already succeeded in bringing the citizenship question to the center of our political debate.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Higher Education Reform Part II | Cincinnatus Series Ep. 2

Like a herd of American buffalo, joy and high spirits have stampeded across America since January 20, 2025—Liberation Day! The country has been liberated from the bleak, suffocating prison of woke tyranny—and we will need all the determination we can muster if we are going to finally put an end to it. The spirit of Making America Great Again is once more at large in the land, stronger, more inspired, and more determined than ever.

It is hard to keep up with the astounding multitude of executive orders President Trump is signing in his first weeks in office. One deserves more attention than we might be inclined to give it: “Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday.” It is focused on preparing “a grand celebration” of America on July 4, 2026, among “other actions to honor the history of our great Nation.” This includes the construction of the monument garden Trump tried to launch during his first term, now to contain 250 statues in honor of our nation’s birth.

President Trump has already appointed more Supreme Court justices than any president in 50 years. He now has a chance to be the first president since Eisenhower to appoint a majority of the justices on the Court. If he does, he would solidify his place as one of America’s most consequential presidents, and he would lock the Court’s liberals out of power for a generation.

If President Trump waits for a vacancy, his opportunity to secure his legacy may slip away. It is possible that neither Justices Alito nor Thomas will retire before the 2026 midterms. And three other justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, will soon be older than 65, the common retirement age, and could in theory vacate their positions between the 2026 midterms and the conclusion of President Trump’s term. If the Democrats win the Senate majority in 2026, they will likely block any appointments President Trump would make to the Court in the interim.

To guard against this, within the first 100 days and without a single justice announcing their retirement, Trump should nominate at least two candidates for the Supreme Court. Alternatively, he could make as many as five nominations for the justices aged 65 or older. President Trump can specify that these nominations will vest upon a vacancy actually arising, and the Republican Senate should swiftly confirm the nominees.

The American people have made their voices heard. In giving Republicans unified control of Congress and sending President Donald Trump back to the White House, they told the world exactly what they want: a return to American greatness, prosperity, and security—in other words, the Golden Age of America.

As I begin my term in the U.S. Senate, I am humbled by the faith the people of Indiana have placed in me, and I am energized by the mandate the Republican Party under Donald Trump’s leadership received from voters nationwide. I pledge to deliver on my campaign promises and to put America first in everything I do.

Americans could not have been more clear: they are tired of failed policies, eroding values, and being a laughingstock on the world stage. They demand, and are entitled to, a government that works for them, not against them. 

It’s long past time their elected leaders actually fight for their interests—leaders unphased by the influence of special interests or foreign powers.

My agenda for this session of Congress is straightforward and unapologetic. Alongside my colleagues in the Senate, I plan to rebuild American industry, secure our borders, strengthen our military, and remove toxic influences from our culture. I am laser-focused on advancing this blueprint for national renewal. 

With the federal government having long treated birthright citizenship as a requirement of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, President Trump’s executive order denying it to children of noncitizen, non-permanent resident mothers faces an uphill court battle. Still, opponents of birthright citizenship can hope that the result will elucidate Section 1’s much-debated “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” phrase and clarify whether an amendment is necessary to reinterpret it.

This issue is not trivial. My colleagues and I at the Center for Immigration Studies recently put together a preliminary estimate that illegal immigrant mothers gave birth to between 225,000 and 250,000 babies in 2023. That number is larger than the total number of births in any single state in 2023 except Texas and California. All of these children are automatically U.S. citizens, and through their birth they increase their parents’ chances of remaining in the country as well.

With the U.S.’s sub-replacement level fertility, isn’t having more children exactly what our country needs? “I want more babies in the United States of America,” Vice President J.D. Vance recently declared, and with good reason. Deaths will soon outnumber births in the U.S., bringing the risk of economic and cultural stagnation as our population ages.

After years of political division and the Democrats’ abuse of the justice system, President Trump’s promise of “retribution” has set the stage for a defining moment in American history. In 2016, Trump confronted a similarly delicate task of balancing retributive justice and national unity. After threatening to “lock her up,” Trump famously declined to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton. He stated that such a move would be too divisive and did not “want to hurt her.” But now, with the stakes even higher, the demands for accountability—and perhaps retribution—have grown louder and more urgent.

The challenge Trump faces lies in pursuing justice without weaponizing it, or even appearing to weaponize it. Accountability is essential to restoring public faith in our government, but it must be handled with fairness and restraint. As Trump himself recently clarified, retribution is not about vengeance—it is about fairness and restoring integrity to institutions that many Americans rightly see as having betrayed their trust. To meet this challenge and complete the restoration of due justice, clemency must work in tandem with justice.

Trump and his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, must offer not only strict consequences for wrongdoing but also a path to rehabilitation to social and political life for those willing to admit fully their violations of the public trust.

If 21st-century Republicans have an idol, a graven image we collectively worship, it is Gross Domestic Product. All discussion about the flourishing of our nation is reduced to GDP, and its increase is seen as an ironclad refutation of anyone who questions whether America is, in fact, flourishing. But GDP, as today calculated, is largely fake, disconnected from the actual production of value. Worse, flourishing-as-quantity is a destructive way to view our society. It was once commonplace that the value of very many things, a mother’s love or a scarlet sunset, was immense, but unmeasurable. We have forgotten this, to our detriment. To truly make America great again, a crucial first step is dethroning GDP as a measure of our greatness.

Yes, there is some benefit to having in our quiver of analytical tools an aggregate way to view additions to economic value, the production of new goods and services. Think of 20 men and women who do nothing except eat and drink what is at hand. They produce no value; the GDP of their little society is zero. If, however, they begin to produce anything, goods or services, they produce value. How to measure such production has, however, generated different approaches, and the method we use today, while it serves our desire for simple ways of viewing the world, conceals truth in order to serve political ends.

The Trump Administration’s decision to contest the dominant interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment is a sign that we might be living in an era of regime politics.

Near the beginning of his Crisis of the Two Constitutions, Charles Kesler distinguishes “normal politics” from “regime politics”:

Normal politics takes place within an accepted political and constitutional order, and concerns means, not ends. That is, the purposes and limits of politics are agreed; the debate is over how to achieve those purposes while observing those limits. By contrast, regime politics is about who rules and for the sake of what ends or principles. It unsettles any existing political order, as well as its limits. It raises anew the basic questions of who counts as a citizen, what are the goals of the political community, and what do we honor or revere together as a people.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Belt and DOGE | The Roundtable Ep. 253

Frederick Douglass once denounced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford as constituting “an open, glaring, and scandalous tissue of lies.” For the massive violence it did to both the Constitution and to the principles upon which that charter is based, that opprobrium is richly deserved.

Forty-one years later, the Court issued a decision that deserves, but has largely avoided, the same kind of vituperation. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court maintained that the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment, incorporated the British common law doctrine of birthright citizenship, and that America’s Founding Fathers intended that this doctrine should prevail in America.

For quality of constitutional and historical reasoning, Wong Kim Ark is every bit as defective as Dred Scott. Yet while Dred Scott is universally condemned, Wong Kim Ark’s conclusions are generally accepted, even if few today are familiar with the case. The pernicious shadow of Wong Kim Ark continues to poison our law and policy regarding immigration.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Higher Education Reform Part I | Cincinnatus Series Ep. 1

Kicking off the Cincinnatus Series, Claremont Institute president Ryan Williams is joined by Inez Stepman, Scott Yenor, and David Azerrad to discuss leftist agendas within universities, and the opportunity for state legislatures to pull the reins and reverse course. Among the levers for dismantling the radical ideological infrastructures are the creation of state-controlled accreditation agencies, funding restrictions, and a renewed focus on student outcomes. The guests discuss these topics, potential pitfalls, and more!

Recommended reading:

How Trump Can Make Universities Great Again

Edward Erler, John Eastman, Ryan Williams, Michael Anton, and Linda Denno have made powerful constitutional cases for limiting birthright citizenship. However, it is easy to get lost in the legal minutiae and fail to see the larger stakes. Behind the birthright citizenship debate, as with all major constitutional debates, is a fundamental political question: Who should be an American citizen?

President Trump should thank former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The implosion of his Iran-backed regime handed Trump the perfect setting to make history. During his first 100 days, President Trump should deliver a speech outlining a fresh U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and announcing the withdrawal of American troops from Syria.

The highly visible nature of a troop withdrawal would mark a clean break from the shortcomings of his predecessors. It would also allow President Trump to fulfill campaign promises with clear, concrete action—correcting the complications from his earlier Syria policy and opening the door to a new golden age of American foreign policy. The neoconservatism of the George W. Bush era failed miserably. The liberal-oriented strategies of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden years did not fare much better. Recent attempts at progressive-oriented approaches have proven equally problematic.

A coalition of commercial pornographers, styling themselves as the “Free Speech Coalition,” is asserting that Texas is threatening their First Amendment liberties by making them legally responsible for verifying the age of viewers who use their websites.

Anyone operating with a vestige of a moral compass, however, should sense something farcical in the pornographers’ preening efforts to claim the moral high ground. Yet given the state of precedent, they have reason to expect the Supreme Court to side with them and prevent Texas from enforcing a law to stop porn from flooding into children’s minds.

The process by which the nation’s highest court came to abet the industrial scale of pornography distribution might be fairly described as diabolical. And no, that’s not hyperbole. I use “diabolical” in the etymological sense espoused by Professor D.C. Schindler, in which a division (dia-ballo means “to divide”) is made between reality and appearance, and appearance is made to substitute for reality in a way that is simultaneously appealing but self-defeating.

Pornography generally, and the digital porn industry specifically, is diabolical both in its puerile appeals to consumers and the legalistic appeals it makes to the courts.

President Trump’s recent executive order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” denies that the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil. Furthermore, it directs the U.S. Department of State and federal agencies not to recognize those children as citizens nor grant them such privileges of citizenship such as being issued U.S. passports.

Numerous scholars have weighed in against the arguments presented in Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. They claim that a plain reading of the 14th Amendment, along with its historical context and the practice of citizenship both before and after its passage, and the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) are incontrovertible proof that birthright citizenship is an absolute right under the Constitution.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Cruel Kids and Theater Kids | The Roundtable Ep. 252

The uphill battle to restore common sense continues with Trump’s executive orders against gender ideology and transition for minors. Meanwhile, a rebellion against the liberal establishment takes joyous shape among normalcy-craving youth. Pinehill Capital president and We the People podcast host Gates Garcia joins the guys to discuss these vibe shifts and the extremely hinged reaction from the Left as they struggle to meet the positivity, branding, and hype of the Right.

Recommended reading:

The Cruel Kids’ Table

When I arrived in Arizona last October to participate in nearly a month of get-out-the-vote efforts, I knew the state would be one of the most fiercely contested battlegrounds in the 2024 presidential election. Joe Biden had won by fewer than 11,000 votes in 2020, making Arizona a potential game-changer for the GOP. Talking to dozens of Grand Canyon State voters—especially younger ones—I became convinced that Donald Trump had tapped into something special. He had connected with the “normies” in a way that leads me to believe Arizona will remain Republican for years to come.

In Arizona, the youth vote—defined as voters between the ages of 19 and 30—proved decisive in Trump’s 2024 election victory. While Trump didn’t win the demographic outright, he made significant inroads, pulling 2% of support away from Kamala Harris and the Democrats. That shift helped him secure the state by a 5.5% margin.

President Trump’s second term thrusts the question of birthright citizenship to the forefront of American politics: should the United States automatically grant citizenship to any child who happens to be born on U.S. soil? Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution requires doing such a thing. Yet defenders of birthright shut down any debate by framing opposition as cruel and racist—and obviously wrong as a legal matter.

But there is a strong constitutional and moral case for limiting birthright citizenship. It’s the argument that led the Trump Administration to issue an executive order that defines a new status quo: going forward, children of illegal aliens won’t receive recognition of their citizenship by the U.S. Department of State or any other executive agency.

Start with the Constitution. The question of birthright citizenship goes back to the 14th Amendment, one of the three ratified in the immediate wake of the Civil War. The relevant portion reads: “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.” The phrase at issue is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (known as the jurisdiction clause). Proponents of birthright maintain that the phrase merely means subject to the laws and courts of the United States.

Claremont Institute scholars, including me, Ed Erler, Tom West, John Marini, and Michael Anton, President Trump’s incoming Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, have been contending for years—decades, really—that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not provide automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances. Other prominent scholars, such as the late University of Texas law Professor Lino Graglia, University of Pennsylvania Professor Rogers Smith, and Yale Law Professor Emeritus Peter Schuck, have come to the same conclusion based on their own extensive scholarly research.

Universities in Ohio value DEI over academic programs. From looking at the program reviews that three notable universities in the state recently undertook, however, this is not immediately obvious.

By all appearances, these institutions made assessments based mostly on budgetary metrics. Kent State University announced a four-year plan to cut nearly $70 million from its budget. The University of Toledo is suspending or consolidating 48 degree programs to save more than $21 million. Miami University has cut or consolidated 18 programs according to its new program prioritization process.

Programs with low enrollments, fewer majors, high faculty-to-student ratios, and little grant potential are also being put on the chopping block. While humanities used to have some of the highest enrollment numbers compared to other departments, they have seen enrollments collapse in the last several decades.

I expected the reaction to a recent op-ed I published calling for the end of birthright citizenship to be cantankerous. I even expected it to be hysterical—from the Left. I did not expect self-described “conservatives” to be just as hysterical as the Left, and to use precisely the same terms. “Nativist.” “Xenophobe.” “Bigot.” “Racist.” “White nationalist.” “White supremacist.”

One point I’ve been making for a while is that one faction of “conservatism”—let’s call it the anti-Trump wing, although the phenomenon long predates Trump—sounds and acts with every passing year more like a “conservative” subdivision of the Left. Like the Left, they don’t want to debate; they want to call those they disagree with evil. For what are those epithets supposed to mean, if not “evil”?

Whether or not to have birthright citizenship for the children of noncitizens is one such fundamentally political question. But like so many other political questions, this one is ruled out of bounds by scholars, lawyers, experts, pundits, and professional moralists.

The American people did not willingly, knowingly, or politically adopt birthright citizenship. They were maneuvered into it by the Left and by the Left-allied judiciary. They’ve never debated it or voted on it. They’ve simply been told that it’s required by the Constitution.

Before the Coronavirus pandemic gripped the American consciousness in early 2020, America was seized by a pandemic of another kind: a hysteria among the nation’s elites over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. The frenzy generated by the progressive-liberal press, Hollywood radicals, progressive politicians (both Democrat and Republican), the minions of the Deep State, academics, and law professors was unprecedented.

It was driven, for the most part, by the Trump Administration’s attempts to curtail illegal immigration by the adoption of a zero-tolerance policy for illegal border crossers; significant restrictions on asylum policies; the use of the National Emergencies Act to shift funds allocated for other purposes to build a border war; the use of the “remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers while their claims are evaluated; and the end of the long-standing “catch and release” policy.

But nothing engendered as much hysteria as the president’s bare suggestion that, in 2018—the year of the sesquicentennial of the adoption of the 14th Amendment—the policy of granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States should be ended.

There is an old European proverb: “Where two fight, a third one wins.”

Anyone with eyes to see the misaligned interests of our major industrial factions can see that an existential clash is coming between the climate industry and artificial intelligence. The under-asked question is how the patriot, who cares little for the discrete interests of either party but greatly about his country, should proceed.

For the last 30 years, American businesses and investors have tripped over themselves to remake their portfolios with a focus on “sustainable” energy. Governments have subsidized this industry to the tune of trillions and made men rich off of their collective participation in this cultish climate scheme.

Smart observers have noted there are many ways to combat the observed “climate crisis” besides a hyper-focus on carbon-emissions reduction. But none of these alternative strategies line the pockets of the forces that have set up financial, industrial, and political projects in support of the shift.

Innovations in solar, wind, and other non-coal/oil/gas energy production schemes are impressive—if you start with the premise that it is urgently necessary to move away from fossil fuels. The entire global project is a house of cards, and the moment someone credible says, “What if we don’t need to worry about that?” the foundational cards are removed and their wealth crumbles.

Central America, a region critical to America’s security and prosperity, stands at a dangerous crossroads. Emboldened by the Biden Administration, leftist regimes have unleashed a wave of corruption, organized crime, and authoritarianism that threatens not only the region’s stability but also the interests of the United States.

Recently, Honduras’s socialist President Xiomara Castro brazenly threatened the United States, declaring she would expel U.S. military bases from the country if President Trump followed through on his plans to deport illegal Honduran nationals.

Castro’s comments were nothing short of audacious. She accused the U.S. of benefiting from Honduran territory for decades without paying a cent, and suggested that any deportation policy would force her government to “reconsider cooperation” in military matters. This brazen attempt to intimidate a democratically elected American president is a striking reminder of how far leftist leaders are willing to go to undermine U.S. interests while demanding handouts.

At the beginning of each presidential term, an inaugural address provides an opportunity for a president to set the tone for things to come through an artful articulation of principle, a considered reflection on the present and the future, and, at least on some occasions, an inspired political poetry that appeals to “the better angels of our nature.” Donald J. Trump’s Second Inaugural Address did much of this, but with the soaring poetry (which was ample enough) appearing only in the final section of the speech.

More than a few commentators have noted, not without justification, that Trump’s address on the 20th of January 2025 at times resembled a State of the Union Address more than a classic inaugural one. But there is a perfectly justified reason for this: President Trump and his supporters believe, rightly in my view, that the Left’s zealous commitment to DEI and the new racialism, transgender ideology, “saving democracy” by burying it, “lawfare” directed against political opponents (most notably Trump himself), and the censoring of free political speech in the name of fighting “misinformation” threatens the very fabric of our constitutional republic, along with its indispensable moral and cultural prerequisites. In these circumstances, it was not possible or appropriate to declare as a victorious Thomas Jefferson had done in 1801, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.”

In states across the country, left-wing academics and major educational establishments are hijacking the review process for K-12 history and civics curricula. Educators and radicals, in league with one another, are conspiring to turn students against America’s traditional cultural and political institutions.

Now that Critical Race Theory (CRT) is being exposed as ahistorical indoctrination, a new permutation of neo-Marxist theory is gaining currency in our schools. It’s called postcolonialism. Its stated mission is to fight “settler colonialism,” a term used to describe any society supposedly built upon the oppression and genocide of indigenous people. Examples of “settler societies” include Israel, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Canada, and the United States. The recent student activism against Israel, which denied the country’s right to exist and celebrated terrorist attacks against it, demonstrated the true nature of postcolonialism and its power to inspire hatred on campus.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

The Arrakeen Restoration | The Roundtable Ep. 251

Claremont Institute scholars, including me, Ed Erler, Tom West, John Marini, and Michael Anton, President Trump’s incoming Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, have been contending for years—decades, really—that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not provide automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances. Other prominent scholars, such as the late University of Texas law Professor Lino Graglia, University of Pennsylvania Professor Rogers Smith, and Yale Law Professor Emeritus Peter Schuck, have come to the same conclusion based on their own extensive scholarly research. 

President Trump’s second term thrusts the question of birthright citizenship to the forefront of American politics: should the United States automatically grant citizenship to any child who happens to be born on U.S. soil? Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution requires doing such a thing. Yet defenders of birthright shut down any debate by framing opposition as cruel and racist—and obviously wrong as a legal matter.

But there is a strong constitutional and moral case for limiting birthright citizenship. It’s the argument that led the Trump Administration to issue an executive order that defines a new status quo: going forward, children of illegal aliens won’t receive recognition of their citizenship by the U.S. Department of State or any other executive agency.

Start with the Constitution. The question of birthright citizenship goes back to the 14th Amendment, one of the three ratified in the immediate wake of the Civil War. The relevant portion reads: “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.” The phrase at issue is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (known as the jurisdiction clause). Proponents of birthright maintain that the phrase merely means subject to the laws and courts of the United States.

If you’re taking flak, you’re over the target.

The old World War II idiom certainly appears to ring true regarding President Trump’s plan to begin the much needed process of refocusing America’s foreign engagements. The subsequent tranche of articles decrying the alleged return of “American isolationism” by defenders of the crumbling American-led liberal international order should therefore not come as a surprise.

They tell us that failing to maintain a sprawling military-industrial framework of permanent alliances, defense guarantees, and logistical entanglements is akin to weakness—appeasement even—that will undermine U.S. national security.

Senator Mitch McConnell makes this exact argument in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. The Republican senator’s lengthy article, “The Price of American Retreat,” is thorough and well-written. It articulates current challenges to U.S. hegemony on the world stage and identifies economic, political, and doctrinal elements of the U.S. force posture that are inadequate to the task of meeting those challenges.

One of the most critical questions of our time is whether the Westphalian system in which sovereign nation states remain the primary form of societal and political organization or if it will be replaced by some form of global government. The U.N. was formed to establish the latter, and unsurprisingly, it has devolved into a trade association for corrupt Third World governments. The time has come for the United States to reassert its status as a sovereign and independent nation and consider withdrawing from the U.N.

Essentially an attempt to revive the failed League of Nations under a new name, the U.N. was founded in June 1945 to prevent war by establishing a deliberative body which could resolve disputes in a peaceful manner. This was based on the belief that it was both feasible and desirable to establish a system where individual nations would depend on multilateral organizations instead of protecting their own national interests.

The adoption of the U.N. Charter was followed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which breathlessly declares it to be “a milestone document in the history of human rights.” It lays out “a common standard of achievements for all people and all nations,” including a list of “fundamental human rights to be universally protected.” Whoever wrote this platitudinous drivel was apparently unaware of Magna Carta or the U.S. Constitution.

Before the Coronavirus pandemic gripped the American consciousness in early 2020, America was seized by a pandemic of another kind: a hysteria among the nation’s elites over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. The frenzy generated by the progressive-liberal press, Hollywood radicals, progressive politicians (both Democrat and Republican), the minions of the Deep State, academics, and law professors was unprecedented.

It was driven, for the most part, by the Trump Administration’s attempts to curtail illegal immigration by the adoption of a zero-tolerance policy for illegal border crossers; significant restrictions on asylum policies; the use of the National Emergencies Act to shift funds allocated for other purposes to build a border war; the use of the “remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers while their claims are evaluated; and the end of the long-standing “catch and release” policy.

But nothing engendered as much hysteria as the president’s bare suggestion that, in 2018—the year of the sesquicentennial of the adoption of the 14th Amendment—the policy of granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States should be ended.

America’s universities may be a disgrace, but the deeper problems with our education system lie with grades K-12. Higher education still ranks as a U.S. strength that other countries might admire—but our grade schools might even be inadequate for poor, developing countries.

The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as The Nation’s Report Card, found that barely a quarter or less of students are proficient in reading, and even less are proficient in math, geography, and U.S. history. U.S. 4th and 8th graders are performing worse not only compared to East Asian countries, but also to such places as Poland, the U.K., South Africa, Turkey, and Sweden, all of which have boosted their scores.

Some of this can be blamed on the pandemic, but not all of it can. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, between pre-pandemic 2019 and 2023, the average score for 4th graders on standardized math tests dropped by 18 points, while scores for 8th graders declined by 27 points. Overall, some 40% of all U.S. public school students fail to meet standards in either math or english, up 8% from pre-pandemic levels.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Big Tech Turns Red | The Roundtable Ep. 250

There’s a certain triumphalism on the Right regarding the declining fortunes of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in American institutions and corporations. Companies which have recently rolled back their DEI programs include heavy weights such as Walmart, Ford, Harley-Davidson, Caterpillar, and Lowe’s. “DEI Is Dying,” read one New York Post op-ed in May of last year. The editors of National Review crowed in May 2024: “DEI on the Run.” Yet as someone who recently completed my employer’s web-based DEI training, it’s going to require a much more concerted effort by businesses and government to excise this cancer from American public life.

The DEI training I took wasn’t mandatory, though it was encouraged by senior leadership, and H.R. told the workforce that its completion would be looked upon positively for promotion purposes.

As I speculated, I got through the approximately 11 hours of video content while still doing my actual job. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of my colleagues thought DEI so important that it demanded their undivided attention.

“The Kids are Alright,” The Who once sang. But about half of American kids are far from alright—in fact, our boys are in real trouble.

The statistics are jarring. Young men without both parents are more likely to spend time in prison than graduate college, according to sociologist Brad Wilcox’s Get Married. In the United States, the second leading cause of death for men under 45 is suicide. Political economist Nicholas Eberstadt contends in Men Without Work that male workforce engagement is at the level it was during the Great Depression.

Political scientist Warren Farrell and counselor John Gray point out in The Boy Crisis that by age nine, children who are not getting enough time with their fathers have telomeres (chromosome indicators which predict life expectancy) 14% shorter than average.

Conservatives interested in higher education reform have spun their wheels for decades. They have demanded free speech, stopping racial preferences, abolishing DEI offices, and ending tenure in the hope of getting universities to appreciate Western civilization. While conservative causes are noble, the mismatch between means and ends predestined its reforms to failure.

Opportunities to reform universities are coming. But conservatives must be willing to take the time to understand how universities work and how to use the levers of power within the academic system to their advantage.

As I show in a new report on the University of Wyoming, one such lever available to conservatives is program review.

Program review, which all accreditors endorse, involves identifying academic programs that lose money or do not fit a school’s mission. Even tenured faculty can be released if their programs do not survive review.

On November 5, the American people delivered President-elect Trump a historic mandate to advance the agenda he championed on the campaign trail. Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, several Republican senators have already turned the cabinet confirmation process into their own personal vanity project. Even before the process has officially commenced, they have signaled that they may resist confirming, or outright vote against, some of Trump’s nominees. Republicans in that camp would do well to remember—for the good of the country and their own political future—that the electoral mandate was given specifically to President-elect Trump, not the Republican Party as a whole.

Trump far outpaced many Senate Republican candidates on Election Day. He won all five swing states with concurrent Senate races, yet the Republican Senate candidate won in just one of them—Pennsylvania—and by mere thousands of votes despite Trump winning by over 100,000. In the other four swing states—Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan—all four Republican candidates came up short.

Whether a president-elect squeaks out a marginal Electoral College victory while losing the popular vote, achieves a Nixon/Reagan-esque landslide, or winds up somewhere in between as most do, a president has the absolute right, and even obligation, to follow through on as many campaign promises as possible. But for those who believe margins and public perception matter, President-elect Trump’s victory was an undeniable landslide given the current state of the electoral map.

In the 1920s, Joseph Stalin coined the term “American Exceptionalism.” He called it the “heresy of American exceptionalism.” In his Marxist religion, the class struggle outlined in the words of the prophet Marx were gospel. To suggest that the universal history described in Marx’s works somehow didn’t apply to America was therefore a heresy.

This story comes to mind as leftists, in the wake of the election, take to re-evaluating the prudence of wokeness. Their assessment seems to be that overemphasizing sexuality, and to a lesser extent race, was a mistake not because it offended America’s egalitarian sensibilities, but because it distracted from the really urgent inequalities: those of the class struggle. 

If one was paying attention, one saw this line of criticism emerge in response to the New York Times’s 1619 Project. Many of the earliest and most influential critiques of the Project were published on a Socialist website. One of the main critics, the distinguished historian Sean Wilentz, is a critic of exceptionalism in the Stalinist sense of the term (he published an article “Against Exceptionalism” early in his career).

Is the H-1B visa a talent visa or an outsourcing visa? Many Americans see it as an outsourcing visa, and for good reason. Until tech Right leaders like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy understand this perspective, their attempts to bring in more foreign labor via the existing H-1B program will face increasing opposition.

“Pink Slips at Disney. But First, Training Foreign Replacements.” Back in 2015, this headline made national waves when Disney replaced about 250 tech workers with H-1B holders. Even worse, these workers received no severance unless they trained their foreign replacements.

One employee, Leo Perrero, broke down crying as he testified before the Senate about his experience—especially when he talked about having to explain his firing to his kids. And lest you think that the H-1B is a talent visa, Perrero had to repeatedly explain basic concepts to his foreign replacements.

Reports released by two House committees in December shine a harsh light on the deceptions and oppressive tactics utilized by numerous federal agencies, the Intelligence Community, and leaders of the Democratic Party. During the last year of the first Trump Administration, agencies within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), State Department, and Justice Department (DOJ) initiated improper contacts with media in an effort to censor conservative views. These agencies also took steps to interfere in the 2020 election to benefit Joe Biden.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Mar-a-Igloo | The Roundtable Ep. 249

On Tuesday, Meta Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced sweeping changes that he claims will reduce censorship and promote better civic discourse on his social media platforms. If fully enacted, these policy shifts across the Meta family of companies would mark a significant departure from the organization’s practices since 2016.

While Zuckerberg’s apparent desire to halt overt information warfare against conservatives is a positive step, we should remain cautious in interpreting this move as a principled stand in favor of respecting constitutional and natural rights. It is far more likely that he is acting out of pragmatism rather than principle, sensing what he has to do given Trump’s victory and the Right’s ascending fortunes.

In the current cultural moment, the woke movement is in decline, and a conservative political ethos is on the rise. X is no longer dominated by progressives. Fortune 500 companies are dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, properly seeing them as liabilities. Despite the media casting Donald Trump and his supporters as extremists, he is set to begin a second presidential term this month with more popular support than he’s ever had. Within the military, pages promoting the LGBTQ agenda are being taken offline. As these shifts continue, expect to see a societal domino effect where leftism loses mainstream legitimacy and counterculture symbols return to their original fringe status.

Normal is coming back in style.

Over the last 40 years, it has become increasingly clear that having open, unsecured borders is at odds with the interests of the American people. Our porous southern border has led to alarming surges in disease, illegal drugs, and human trafficking. Mass immigration has contributed to a growing housing crisis, while new job creation is being disproportionately soaked up by migrants at the expense of native-born Americans.

The most recent conflict over immigration, which erupted over the Christmas holiday, concerns the last point: how many foreign workers should we allow to displace American workers?

The 2024 election ushered in a new era in Republican electoral strategy. The chaos of 2020 left ordinary voters bitter and disappointed in the clunky inadequacies of old-fashioned canvassing efforts against a decentralized and shameless Democratic ground game. In response, ordinary citizens began gathering into grassroots, populist groups to get out the vote in a more nimble and up-to-date way. I was among them, and what I saw gave me hope for the future of the party.

I arrived on the ground in Glendale, Arizona, unsure of what to expect. During the Biden years, I had been keeping track of my home country from afar as I worked for a conservative organization in Budapest. I watched with alarm as inflation soared, drug cartels trafficked kids across the southern border, towns were overwhelmed by illegal migration, men invaded women’s sports, teachers radicalized students into trans activism, and global instability worsened under Democratic leadership. Usually, I’d roll my eyes, rant on social media, or vent to my friends. This time, I felt compelled to act—but how?

What could I, a 54-year-old woman with no political connections or online influence, really do? In Budapest I was immersed in a thriving conservative movement. Coming home, though, I wasn’t prepared for the political chaos that greeted me. In Hungary I felt part of the cause; back here, I feel completely out of the loop.