Trump calls U.S. a “stupid country” amid birthright citizenship controversy

President Donald Trump ignited a firestorm of controversy on May 15, 2025, by labeling the United States a “stupid country” in a Truth Social post railing against birthright citizenship.

The provocative remark came as the Supreme Court heard arguments on Trump’s executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, aimed at ending automatic citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents.

The case has thrust the 14th Amendment into the spotlight, pitting constitutional protections against Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda and sparking a national debate over citizenship, identity, and the rule of law.

Trump’s Explosive Rhetoric

In a series of posts on Truth Social, President Trump unleashed a scathing critique of birthright citizenship, calling it a policy that makes the US a laughingstock.

“Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!” he wrote (al.com).

He claimed the US is the only country in the world to grant such rights, asserting, “for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it!”

Trump’s assertion that the US is unique in offering birthright citizenship is inaccurate.

Approximately 30 countries, including Canada, Mexico, and most South American nations, also grant citizenship based on birthplace, a fact previously debunked by outlets like CNN (CNN Fact-Check).

He further argued that the policy, rooted in the 14th Amendment, was intended solely to protect “the babies of slaves” after the Civil War ended in 1865, not to address modern immigration challenges.

“We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America,” Trump continued.

He urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the issue, writing, “Please explain this to the Supreme Court of the United States. Again, remember, the Civil War ended in 1865, and the Bill goes to Congress in 1866 — We didn’t have people pouring into our Country from all over South America, and the rest of the World. It wasn’t even a subject. What we had were the BABIES OF SLAVES.”

The Constitutional Foundation of Birthright Citizenship

Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (right of the soil), is enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868.

The amendment’s Citizenship Clause 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.”

Its primary purpose was to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants, overturning the 1857 Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to Black Americans (Harvard Law School).

The principle was further clarified in 1898 through United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court ruled that children born in the US to Chinese immigrants were citizens, regardless of their parents’ status.

This precedent has upheld birthright citizenship for over a century, with few exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or those born in American Samoa, who are considered US nationals (Council on Foreign Relations).

Globally, birthright citizenship is not the norm but is practiced in about 30 countries, mostly in the Americas.

Many nations, particularly in Europe and Asia, follow jus sanguinis (right of blood), granting citizenship based on parentage.

Some countries, like Ireland and India, have recently restricted birthright citizenship, requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident.

Trump’s Executive Order and Legal Challenges

On January 20, 2025, his first day back in office, President Trump signed Executive Order 14156, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

The order directed federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the US to parents who are not US citizens or lawful permanent residents, targeting those in the country illegally or on temporary visas, such as tourist, student, or work visas.

The executive order sparked immediate legal challenges. Three federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state issued nationwide injunctions, halting its implementation.

Judge John C. Coughenour in Washington called the order “blatantly unconstitutional,” while Judge Deborah L. Boardman issued a preliminary injunction on February 5, 2025.

Eighteen states, led by Democratic attorneys general, along with immigrant rights groups and expecting mothers, filed lawsuits arguing that the order violates the 14th Amendment.

The Trump administration appealed, arguing that lower courts overstepped their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions.

The Justice Department claimed these injunctions “fundamentally thwart” the president’s ability to enact policies and represent a “direct attack” on the administration.

The administration also contended that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should exclude children of non-permanent residents, a view most legal scholars reject.

Supreme Court Showdown

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, consolidating three related challenges and scheduling oral arguments for May 15, 2025 (Constitution Center).

The hearing focused not only on the constitutionality of Trump’s order but also on the broader issue of nationwide injunctions.

The administration argued that such injunctions improperly limit presidential power, while opponents emphasized the 14th Amendment’s clear language and historical precedent.

Legal experts, including Harvard Law School’s Gerald Neuman, argue that a president lacks the authority to unilaterally alter citizenship rules, which are explicitly defined by the Constitution.

The ACLU echoed this, calling Trump’s order “clearly unconstitutional” and warning of its potential to disrupt millions of lives.

As of May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court has not issued a ruling, with a decision expected by late June or early July.

The outcome could redefine the scope of the 14th Amendment and set a precedent for future executive actions.

Public Reaction and Broader Context

Trump’s remarks and the legal battle have polarized the nation. Immigrant rights advocates, such as the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, have protested the order, citing its impact on communities with deep American roots.

The ACLU warned that ending birthright citizenship would create a “two-tiered system” and exacerbate discrimination.

Supporters, however, argue that birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and strains public resources.

A January 2025 Emerson College poll found 49% of Americans support restricting citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, compared to 41% who oppose it (Emerson College Poll).

Legislative efforts, such as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Brian Babin, reflect growing political momentum to address the issue, though such bills face significant hurdles (National Immigration Forum).

Trump’s remarks fit into his broader immigration crackdown.

Since taking office, he has deported hundreds of migrants to El Salvador’s mega-jail under a wartime law, offered “exit bonuses” to non-citizens who leave voluntarily, and challenged trade agreements to bolster his “Make America Great Again” agenda.

These policies have drawn criticism for prioritizing enforcement over humanitarian concerns but resonate with his base.

Global Perspective and Historical Precedent

While Trump claims the US is alone in granting birthright citizenship, countries like Canada, Brazil, and Argentina also follow jus soli.

Recent global trends show some nations tightening citizenship laws.

Ireland amended its constitution in 2004 to require parental residency, and the Dominican Republic restricted citizenship for children of undocumented migrants in 2010.

These changes reflect debates over migration and national identity, similar to those in the US.

Historically, birthright citizenship in the Americas was adopted to build inclusive nations, incorporating indigenous populations and former slaves.

The US’s 14th Amendment was a direct response to the Dred Scott decision, ensuring equal citizenship rights (Council on Foreign Relations).

Trump’s reinterpretation challenges this legacy, raising questions about constitutional fidelity and presidential power.

Potential Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision will have profound consequences.

Upholding Trump’s order could limit citizenship for millions, create legal uncertainty, and embolden future executive actions on constitutional issues.

Striking it down would reaffirm the 14th Amendment’s protections and curb presidential overreach.

Either way, the ruling will shape immigration policy and national identity for decades.

The debate also highlights broader tensions. For some, birthright citizenship embodies America’s commitment to equality and opportunity.

For others, it’s a loophole that undermines sovereignty. Trump’s “stupid country” remark encapsulates this divide, framing the issue as a battle over America’s values and future.

A Nation at a Crossroads

As the Supreme Court deliberates, the nation watches closely.

Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric has amplified an already contentious issue, forcing Americans to confront fundamental questions about citizenship, immigration, and constitutional authority.

Whether the court upholds or rejects the executive order, the debate over birthright citizenship will continue to shape the political landscape, reflecting deep-seated divisions over what it means to be American in 2025.

Trending News