Echoing its “news” side, WorldNetDaily’s columnists have enthusiastically supported President Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship. Josh Hammer declared in a January 2025 column:
Less than two weeks into this second Trump presidency, the fearmongering has already reached fever pitch. “He can’t do it!” the critics have invariably howled in decrying President Donald Trump’s landmark day-one executive order upending the status quo on birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The usual suspects in the punditocracy say Trump’s order is “blatantly unconstitutional” and that it “violates settled law.” Perhaps it’s even “nativist” or “racist,” to boot!
Like the Bourbons of old, pearl-clutching American elites have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Because when it comes to birthright citizenship, the virtue signaling and armchair excoriation is not just silly – it’s dead wrong on the law. Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order on birthright citizenship is legally sound and fundamentally just. The maestro of Mar-a-Lago deserves credit, not condemnation, for implementing such a bold order as one of his very first second-term acts.
[…]Fourteenth Amendment-mandated birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is, at best, a live and unsettled legal debate. But the original meaning is quite clear: The amendment’s draftsmen would have been aghast at the notion that people who broke our laws and entered our soil illegally could then be afforded birthright citizenship for their children. The drafters likely foresaw, as so many today do not, the tremendous perverse incentives induced by such an ill-conceived policy.
The so-called legal eagles are wrong. And Trump, yet again, is right.
When the Supreme Court refused to go along, WND columnists raged anew. Hammer ranted in a July 3 column:
It is shameful that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett constitutionalized this fraught issue, rejecting Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s middle-ground statutory overture and thus removing the question of birthright citizenship – and all that it now entails, such as the execrable practice of “birth tourism” – from our normal democratic politics. To that extent, Roberts and Barrett have indeed given us a new Roe v. Wade. Under a standard reading of Barbara, the case must be overturned, or a new constitutional amendment passed, in order to preserve the sanctity of citizenship.
But what if the standard reading of Barbara is wrong? President Donald Trump responded to the court’s decision by calling on Congress to act. Most commentators dismissed this out of hand as a paroxysm of rage from an aggrieved party. But the president, it turns out, is actually grasping at an important point. Congress can, and should, act by declaring both illegal aliens and so-called birth tourists to be the functional legal equivalent of modern-day foreign army invaders.
[…]The Supreme Court has made a profound error in a case of immense importance. Barbara can, and at some point likely will, be overturned on 14th Amendment grounds. And the passing of a constitutional amendment to overturn Barbara, though perhaps farfetched, is a worthwhile effort even if it amounts to nothing more than a collective flexing of the sinews of self-governance in this milestone 250th anniversary year. But We the People are not otherwise helpless. Our representatives in Congress can act. They should do so posthaste.
Andy Schlafly followed in a July 16 column:
The dire consequences of the birthright citizenship decision by the Supreme Court on June 30 are sinking in. It impedes deportation and it gives millions of future votes to the Democrat Party (sic], which is increasingly electing socialist candidates.
Texans had already been in an uproar about foreigners taking over entire communities there. Texans do not want to be subjected to future socialism as voted in by birthright citizens whose parents were illegals or sojourners.
[…]Birthright citizenship is that once-in-a-century issue justifying a rehearing. The harmful impact of this on the sovereignty of Texas and every other state is at stake, just as the notorious Dred Scott decision in 1857 wrongly interfered with states that prohibited slavery.
If the Supreme Court had reconsidered and reversed its Dred Scott decision after seeing the Republican-led backlash against it, then perhaps the lives of 750,000 American soldiers would have been saved by averting the Civil War. The Supreme Court is supposed to act to unite the country, not divide it with a 5-4 decision that invents a new constitutional right for foreigners who are not even domiciled in the USA.
[…]This argument should resonate with Justice Barrett, who has favored state autonomy on other controversial issues such as the power of states to ban transgender procedures or to protect girls’ sports against intrusion by boys who present themselves as transgender girls.
Of course Schlafly has to shoehorn transgender issues into the birthright citizenship argument.