I haven’t looked at all of President Trump’s executive orders yet but I did want to comment on a few that look controversial. The first of these is his granting pardons to individuals convicted of offenses committed on January 6, 2021 in or near the Capitol. Although some of those pardons may be warranted, I have already expressed my opinion of blanket pardons—I’m against them and that doesn’t matter which president is granting them. I suspect that some people are being granted pardons who don’t merit them.
Perhaps the most controversial is President Trump’s executive order purporting to end the birthright citizenship provisions of the 14th Amendment:
The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
I think that eliminating so-called “birth tourism” (the second item above) is correct and within the meaning of the amendment. It is my understanding that the other declaration has already been brought to the court’s attention. It’s an interesting theory but I suspect the courts will not uphold it.
Also controversial is withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization. One of the claims in the EO is that the U. S. is paying far too much of the organization’s budget:
In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.
I’m not so sure about the math, either the WHO’s or the White House’s. Here’s what Statista says were the relative assessments in 2022:
You will find more infographics at Statista
I don’t know what our 2024 assessment was or whether we paid it. I think it’s reasonable to ask whether we’re getting value for our money but IMO withdrawal from the organization is an extreme step.
The amount we pay to WHO is a trivial amount of our budget and we benefit heavily from their efforts to control the spread of infectious diseases. Its shortsighted. On the pardons Vance had said that Trump “obviously” wouldn’t pardon those who had attacked police, yet he obviously did, which is what I thought he would do. They were committing violence to support his cause.
Slightly OT- He says he will deregulate the banks. How long until we have a banking crisis? I am thinking 10-15 years. The S&L crisis occurred sooner after the Reagan deregulation but it took about 10 years after the late 90s/early 2000s deregulation efforts.
Steve
The problem with WHO is that we entered into an agreement with them that gives WHO the power to impose lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations on Americans in the US during pandemics.
This was a presidential order, not a formal treaty, so Trump can change.
Not true. WHO has no such power. Neither does the CDC. I am not even sure the POTUS has that power. Lockdowns were ordered at the state level which is why they were so varied, some states never truly locking down, others for a few months and others for over a year.
Steve
The interesting part of the birthright citizenship EO is it appears to be drafted with an idea of the legal arguments that would follow. That’s true of most of the other EOs I’ve seen discussed. One might argue that they are over the line, but the EO is at least aware of some of the lines. I think the birthright citizenship arguments have a difficult path, but it probably gets to the SCOTUS at some point and we might learn what is permissible.