➡ President Trump has fired Attorney General Pam Bondi due to dissatisfaction with her performance, including the handling of the Epstein files and lack of serious investigation into lawfare targeting Trump. The next Attorney General should focus on reforming the Justice Department, which has been criticized for its unchanged infrastructure and deep state nature. The suggestion is to appoint an outside special counsel to handle investigations and prosecutions, while the new Attorney General should work on dismantling the deep state within the Justice Department and FBI. This would prevent the misuse of the Justice Department by future presidents to target their political enemies.
➡ The article discusses the controversial raid on former President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago by the Biden administration’s Justice Department and FBI. The author argues that the raid was unjustified, as the FBI had expressed concerns about the lack of probable cause. The article also highlights the quick release of related documents by the FBI, which the author praises. The author criticizes the Justice Department for its differing treatment of Trump compared to former Presidents Clinton and Biden in similar situations.
➡ The article discusses a controversial raid on President Trump’s Mar A Lago home, which was allegedly pushed forward by Biden’s Justice Department despite the FBI’s belief that there was no probable cause. The author criticizes the lack of accountability for this perceived abuse of power and calls for outside entities to investigate the Justice Department and FBI. The article also mentions a left-wing group’s involvement in instigating the investigation and raid. Lastly, it touches on the issue of birthright citizenship and the Supreme Court’s recent examination of the 14th Amendment in relation to this matter.
➡ The text discusses the importance of presidents attending Supreme Court proceedings to better understand the court’s operations and the performance of justices. It also delves into the complex issue of birthright citizenship, particularly in cases where parents are unlawfully present in the U.S. or are temporary visitors. The author argues that the 14th Amendment does not automatically grant citizenship to children born under these circumstances, and encourages readers to engage with the issue and form their own opinions.
➡ The article discusses the debate over whether children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. should be granted citizenship. It mentions a Supreme Court case that could potentially overturn a previous ruling that allowed such children to become citizens. The article also touches on the issue of “birth tourism,” where people come to the U.S. to give birth and secure citizenship for their children. Lastly, it mentions a lawsuit against the Federal Reserve over a $2.5 billion headquarters renovation.
➡ The Federal Reserve is under scrutiny for a $2.5 billion building renovation, with concerns about luxury features and cost overruns. The head of the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., Jeannie Pirro, issued subpoenas to investigate potential corruption, but these were dismissed by Chief Judge James Boasberg. The Federal Reserve has refused to comply with the subpoenas, leading to questions about what they might be hiding. This issue is still ongoing and is now in the hands of a federal court.

Hello, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with our weekly update on social media. Always busy here in Washington, D.C. when it comes to the rule of law and fighting government corruption. The big news this week, among other major stories, is President Trump’s firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi. It is in many ways not a surprise. It’s been reported he’s been unhappy with her performance for some time. And, you know, Judicial Watch has been critical of the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files or the mishandling of the Epstein files, the lack of seeming effectiveness or even evidence of any serious investigation into the lawfare targeting Trump.

And there have been some good things that the attorney general has done. She’s had to oversee a Justice Department that had to go to court dozens, if not hundreds of times to defend the president’s prerogatives under our Constitution and, frankly, our democracy, as the left has tried to shut down Trump initiative after Trump initiative in court. But in the end, he lostshe lost the confidence of President Trump and many of his supporters. And so it’s not a surprise that she was fired. And I think the issue should be now, is not necessarily who should be the next attorney general, but what the next attorney general should do, what should be the program, what should be the reform operation that he or she pursues.

My concern is that currently or to date, in addition to the lack of prosecutions or seeming, as I say, no evidence of serious, broad criminal investigations of a significant nature into lawfare targeting Trump and many other innocents, that the infrastructure of the Justice Department hasn’t been changed. All of those lawyers are largely there. Some have retired, many have left. Some of them have left. But the operations of the agency are continuing as they have in the past. The budget’s still there. Same for the FBI. Now. Are there people who’ve left and who may never come back? Sure.

But that doesn’t change the deep state nature of the agency. The numbers are simply too great. And the number of political appointees at the Justice Department is really small. In the FBI, it’s a handful of employees. So it’s really important that the Justice Department be constrained, as I say, defanged, and its powers shattered and scattered as appropriate. So what they did before can never be done again, or at least easily be done again. I mean. I mean, that should at least be the standard. So the next attorney general should have a commitment to not only serious investigations and prosecutions, but also, I think, even more importantly, and I’ll tell you why, just changing the very nature of The Justice Department, we can’t have this agency that lords overall in terms of the operations of the federal government.

And it can be used at the beck and call of, of whatever nasty leftist inhabits the Oval Office to try to jail their political enemies. And in fact, that’s what they’re promising. Now. The left is, they say if we come back into power, we’re going to come after Trump, his family, corporations, businesses, his appointees, members of, it looks like, members of Congress, potentially, again, supporters or perceived allies on the outside. I mean, we’ve already, Judicial Watch has already been targeted previously under the Biden regime. Why would we think that would not happen again or maybe even be worse after this Trump term? Given the lack of reform at the Justice Department, shuffling a few chairs around is not going to change it.

And so I suggested, and I’ll tell you what I suggested, that they move to defang and as I say, essentially really shrink the Justice Department down significantly. And do I think the Justice Department should do criminal investigations of prosecutions in the least of the lawfare, in the least, do I think they’re capable of doing it? No. So one thing the president can do is take that off their, take that off the burner for them and recognize that the Justice Department can’t investigate the Justice Department abuse of President Trump and others. The FBI can’t investigate the FBI abuse of President Trump and others.

So there should be an outside special counsel or lawyer, attorney, prosecutor, who reports to the president of the United States, the chief magistrate under our constitutional system, and conducts the investigations and prosecutions and leave the new attorney general, whoever that person may be. It may be Todd Blanche, who’s acting attorney general. All sorts of other names have been introduced as possibilities to do the reform, to dismantle the deep state doj, to dismantle the deep state FBI and all those politically sensitive investigations are being run into the White House because I just don’t see it getting done any other way.

Now, the more likely result is that we’re going to get an attorney general who is confirmable. Right? And we’ll just have the same old Justice Department with some prosecutions, maybe investigations on the margin that are useful and fruitful, but we’re still going to have that very dangerous agency in terms of our republic, largely fully staffed and ready to go the next time a president like Biden or Obama come in or Hillary, Hillary’s seemingly wanting to be president again. Do you want Hillary Clinton to have the same Justice Department, this size, this scope, with this power that Joe Biden had I don’t.

I don’t. This sword of Damocles hanging over our republic. What they did was to try to basically steal our republic from under our noses by trying to end the presidency of Trump early and then jail him to prevent him from running again and frighten everyone else, mainly his supporters, by prosecuting them and threatening them and harassing them and making it nearly impossible for them to engage in First Amendment protected activity and get in the way of their governance model, which is, in my view, turning America into a one party state. So these are serious times. And soand I highlighted it in a tweet.

What he should do. This is a pretty simple explanation of it. President Donald Trump should directly oversee investigation and prosecution of lawfare against him. His new ag pick should commit to doing to DOJ and the FBI what Linda McMahon is doing to the Department of Education to shatter and scatter their powers. And one thing I did note, I was trying to provoke people just a little bit, but I noted here, look at this little line. The Attorney General doesn’t have to be a lawyer. Now, I’m not saying I should be Attorney General, but I’m saying the president should consider other options than lawyers.

You know, in this day and age, the Attorney General, frankly, needs to be an administrator, someone who knows how large organizations are run, who can, you know, Linda McMahon was a successful or is a successful businesswoman. She knows how to run an organization. Why not her? I mean, if the goal is to shutter the Justice Department in large measure and bring it back into the constitutional fold in a way that protects the republic, I don’t think you need a lawyer to do that. You can have a business leader, you can have a public policy activist, someone who’s familiar with what’s going on in the deep state.

There are going to be plenty of lawyers to provide the necessary support for any of the legal roles and duties of an Attorney general. But it’s that kind of outside the box thinking. I think the president should pursue. And there are many good. Now, to be fair, there are many good attorneys who could probably do what I’m asking them to do. But I tell you, we cannot have someone like Pam Bondi, who is previously. Her task, seemingly as she set out for herself, was to, you know, try to not do too much to cause heartburn to the other side who tried to jail President Trump.

I mean, there’s got to be accountability for that. So I would bifurcate the whole, the whole, the whole situation here. Appoint a special counsel reporting to the president. He can direct the investigation and prosecution as he sees fit. Now, it doesn’t mean that it’s some sort of dictatorship. You know, the prosecutions have to proceed and the investigations have to proceed under the law and with the respect for civil liberties and protections afforded the targets of any investigation or any of the accused ultimately, if they’re indicted or deemed to be defendants. So that’s not the issue. The issue is the agency that are the group that is doing the investigation and potential prosecution, are they conflicted out? And I think the Justice Department is conflicted out since their whole operation should be subject to this review that I’m talking about and leave the attorney general to do the work that an attorney general is supposed to do under the our limited government analysis and as I say, defang deconstruct the Justice Department so it’s something that we can trust as opposed to something that we fear as patriots.

So, no, I don’t think the president’s going to name name me to be attorney general, although I’m sure we will do worse. Right? I’m just joking, of course, but I hope he thinks big. I hope he really thinks big. Now he’s facing a Senate that’s kind of closely divided. So I don’t deny there are political obstacles to getting someone super aggressive in there. But I would push as much as he could. To try to save, you know, and there’s a self protection here because heck, I mean, he and his family are going to be abused in unbelievable ways at the end after he leaves office, especially if the Democrats come back in.

And I don’t think he’s going to be protected just because a Republican retains the Oval Office at the end of his term. That’s not the way things work in D.C. remember, it was his own Justice Department that was trying to destroy him during the first term. Why would we think a Justice Department under a Republican that isn’t him not try to do the same thing given the pressures in this town, the anti Trump fanaticism and anti conservative fanaticism among the left these days. So we’ll see. We should hear soon whether there’ll be a new attorney general or whether he’ll just elevate Todd Blanche.

But this is the way I think the president should think about it respectfully. And I wanted to share that with you. I’m sure. I was hoping you’d be interested in it. And we’ll see if the president takes my advice. We received a new batch of important documents under the Freedom of Information act about the lawfare that I’ve been Highlighting and one of the worst aspects of the lawfare, which was the illicit, in my view, raid on the home of President Trump, then former President Trump, his home at Mar a Lago, by the Biden gang, namely the Justice Department, the FBI, and who knows who else.

And the FBI, to its credit, gave us documents quickly. This is an example that maybe they’re paying attention a little bit on some of these transparency issues. The FBI is. We’d been fighting in court day after day, lawsuit after lawsuit, to get access to records. And in this case, we asked for records and we got them almost immediately. So it was just great. This is the way it’s supposed to work. Director Cash Patel. This is the way it’s supposed to work. DOJ leadership. It’s just, this is perfect. We ask for the documents, we get the documents under the law, and the documents, you can see why they’ve been hidden from the American people for so long until this disclosure to a Judicial Watch by the FBI.

So, as the release says here, we obtain the 207 pages of those FBI records thatand the headline is they were concerned that there was no probable cause to raid the home of President Trump at Mar a Lago. I’ll say it one more time, no probable cause. That means there was no good faith reason to raid his home. And nonetheless, the Biden gang at the Justice Department, with the acquiescence obviously, of FBI leadership in the end, because that’s the way it technically or practically has to work, raided his home in an unprecedented fashion. And the abuses have reverberated through our national consciousness since then.

And this shows that there was corruption behind the raid. And it gets even deeper than just the FBI’s concern about probable cause. The big email is the July 12, 202022 email. Let me bring it up here. I’ll show you what it looks like, and then I’ll read it to you. I won’t force you to read it on the screen because it might be too difficult. So here’s a bunch of material withheld. For various reasons that I won’t go into. So essentially, the Washington Field Office moved forward with an investigative plan, much of which the purpose is withheld, but it’s typically about.

It’s about what they call plasmic echo. Plasmic echo was the code name for the investigation into President Trump’s handling of presidential files after his election or after he left office. And you can see they used to black it out, but I think someone in government figured out we’re better off not blacking out documents. Because it looks terrible. Let’s just white it out. So these are blacked out documents and this is the key part. So they said other options for resolution at the end. Washington Field Office has made numerous suggestions to DOJ Justice Department over the course of this investigation.

But the most expedient way to ensure recovery of all classified documents would be to go through Mr. Corcoran, then Trump’s attorney’s. Evan Corcoran was Trump’s attorney at the time. DOJ has persistently disagreed. New NARA referral. The National Archives and Records Administration, which is a bureaucracy that just houses government documents or presidential records. Referral for all Presidential Records act records versus classified. If NARA pursuit of presidential records which are likely to still be located. Let me start over on that again. If NARA pursued presidential records which are likely to be still located at Mar? A Lago, they could recover any additional records which may, upon review, identify additional classified material.

Washington Field Office has been rebuffed at this request by doj. So they were just asking for, let us look at presidential records that may be covered by the act and see if there are classified records there. The field office does not believe and as articulated to doj, Counterintelligence and Export Control Section that we have established probable cause for for the search warrant at Mar? A Lago, DOJ has opined they do, requesting a wide scope, including residence, office and storage place space. This is the key phrase here, right up top there. Wfo, that’s the field office, the most powerful field office arguably in the FBI.

The Washington Field Office here in Washington D.C. does not believe and has articulated to the relevant agency at the Justice Department that we have established probable cause for the search warrant at Mar? A Lago and doj and DOJ meeting political appointees of President Biden have opined they do. And then they note finally, if the goal is to identify and recover classified records quickly so as to protect the information, the five weeks fixated, spent fixated on probable cause for a search warrant have been counterproductive. So their point was talk to the lawyers and get in there and try to get them to give you any classified records you think are there, which is what President Trump had offered to them.

You can go look and see anything you want and take any what you believe to be classified records. Now under the Presidential Records act, he wasn’t required to do that. I mean, this is the big lie about this whole scenario. Under the Presidential Records act, under the precedent of the Presidential Records act, and I think only under to the degree it’s constitutional, the only appropriate reading of the Presidential Records act is that the President has the authority to take records that he deems to be personal. And no one can second guess that authority. And yes, that means taking records that were, quote, classified when they were created in the agency, but he’s declassified them by converting them to personal records.

That’s what the law allows for. How do we know that? Because we similarly had pursued a case against Bill Clinton in the sock draw case, you may have heard of it. Bill Clinton had recordations made of him by an authority of his communications with foreign leaders and members of Congress, basically recording his duties as a president or his operations as a president. He kept them in his sock drawer, infamously, and took them with him and didn’t turn them over to the National Archives. And we said, those are presidential records. The Justice Department at the time. Said, no, they’re presidential records.

I mean, they’re not presidential records. And in fact, if they’re classified, they’re not classified anymore because he took them. They’re presumptively declassified, and we couldn’t get them. But judge said, what are we going to do? Raid the President’s home? And then Trump comes in and the Justice Department takes a complete 180 and says, oh, no, no. All that classified records permission that we gave to Bill Clinton to take with him, that we deem to be declassified and personal to him, we’re going to pretend that doesn’t apply to Trump. So to be clear, Bill Clinton took records just like Trump did, and the Justice Department said that was perfectly appropriate, even though some of those records were presumptively, quote, classified.

Trump took records just like Bill Clinton did, and they tried to put him in jail for it. Oh, yes, and another thing, Joe had done the same darn thing, and they didn’t want to prosecute him at all or even investigate him. And to the degree they were, they were hiding it from the American people and protecting Joe as they were raiding the home of Donald Trump. And here we’ve got smoking gun documents again, smoking gun documents that the FBI thought there was no probable cause to raid the home of President Trump. And kudos to the FBI for releasing this information as quickly as they did to us.

Now, it’s years late, admittedly, but we had this specific request and they responded quickly. And, you know, despite the redactions, with plenty of important information. Again, a separate internal communication reinforces the agents rejected the legal basis and the scope of the search. DOJ has inquired as to an operations plan for a search, a search warrant of Mar A Lago. The field office relayed that we are not in agreement for probable cause on the search warrant. Washington field office has an OPS plan in place that will can be quickly updated between FBI at Miami and FBI. I guess the Washington field office, however blank the names redacted, does not believe we have probable cause for the TRARP office or the bedroom due to the recency and issues of boxes versus classified information.

Therefore, as we are in disagreement on a search warrant in scope, we are not yet finalizing a search warrant as we are missing relevant logistics and detail. So they were at loggerheads, DOJ wanted to run in there, raid the President’s bedroom and the FBI said no and eventually they were forced to. Obviously the history is the raid occurred. So politics won, the rule of law lost. Politics won, President Trump’s civil liberties lost. Politics won, the President’s prerogative, President Trump’s prerogative as President of the United States lost. Politics won, our Constitution lost all in the Mar A Lago raid.

These documents demonstrate that. There’s another email that shows that the FBI said, you know, let us talk to the President’s lawyers because the DOJ is, is just ham fisted and causing problems. And the DOJ’s response was he franklythis is one of the lawyers for the doj, one of Trumpsone of Biden’s appointees. He frankly doesn’t give a damn about the optics. And they highlight how Mr. Brat, who became a top official also for Jack Smith’s jihad against Trump, quote has already built an antagonistic relationship with the former President’s attorney than president then former President Trump. So even just communicating with Corcoran, who was his lawyer about the search warrant should have been done by the FBI.

And of course the DOJ didn’t do any of that. Another email suggests that the FBI, the press had heads up on the search. So how did that happen? So another abuse of power, a leak about the search it looks like, and this is interesting, another document shows that a left wing group or left wing groups, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and notorious left wing group that was actually created because of Judicial Watch. They saw Judicial Watch was effective so they came up with some front left wing group for the left to pursue ethics issues targeting only conservatives.

Now of course we target both political parties. Cruz was obviously just targeting Donald Trump in this regard and they had sent a letter with these non serious claims about the Presidential Records act. And the letter it looks like helped generate the prosecutor, the investigation and the raid subsequent. So it Looks like a left wing interest group worked with the Justice Department and FBI to get the President’s home raided. It’s here in black and white. Letter to Ag and Director from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive. Another left wing Group, dated 2822, writing regarding President Donald Trump and other White House officials demonstrating a serious regard for their recordkeeping responsibilities under Presidential Records act, requesting DOJ investigate whether former President Trump violated federal criminal law by willfully mutilating and destroying critical records of his presidency before leaving office.

And they moved that into the system and a few days later they opened up the investigation. Officially, These documents show the FBI knew there was no probable cause if Biden’s Justice Department pushed forward with an abusive raid on President Trump’s Mar A Lago home. This is an historic, or I would say infamous, abuse of power that demands full accountability. And Judicial Watch will continue pursuing additional disclosures to uncover the full truth behind one of the most controversial federal investigations in American history. There’s been nothing like it in American history. The targeting of President Trump. And once again, it’s Judicial Watch front and center getting you key truths about the level of abuse.

This is more evidence, in my view, of criminal conduct by DOJ and FBI officials. You had FBI folks who were in the middle of the investigation suggesting there was no probable cause for a search warrant into the home of a President of the United States, or at least a former President of the United States, and they did it anyway. How is that not under criminal investigation? That’s really inexcusable. I give credit to the FBI, Cash Patel’s team for releasing this material pretty quickly to us. On the other hand, where are the arrests? I say that advisedly.

I know it doesn’t mean an arrest is going to mean. But that’s a shorthand for where are the investigations? Where are the serious grand jury investigations? Calling in people? And as I said earlier in talking about the firing of Pam Bondi, I don’t think the FBI can’t investigate the FBI. The Justice Department can’t investigate the Justice Department. There should be outside entities appointed by the President who are doing the investigation into this abuse of power. Now remember Judicial Watch in retaliation for our calling attention to these abuses of power, specifically the Mar a Lago garbage, and highlighting the 180 the Justice Department took from the Clinton Sacro case, resulted in them sending the FBI to my home, resulted in a subpoena to Judicial Watch, resulted in me having to go before a grand jury for hours and getting harassed to Name other to include other abuses that I haven’t even gotten into yet.

And here there was no basis, so they were harassing me for suggesting there was no basis when the FBI knew there was no basis to raid the man’s home. And I get hauled in before a grand jury as, quote, a witness being asked about what in retaliation over am I blowing the whistle on this attack on Trump’s home? Outrageous. Outrageous. And so it’s unsurprising to me when an attorney general, kind of for a month, a year and a half, practically speaking, does nothing on any of this, gets fired by President Trump. Is he thinking of this specific issue? No.

But I’m sure if he watched this, he’d be as angry as I am or as you are. So we’ll see if we get other information on the raid and the Mar a Lago abuse from the FBI. We hope so. You can look at the documents, go to our website. The link is below, because there’s more there. I can’t get into it all here, read. Educate yourself on this. Share this with your. With your friends, your family, members of your church, and call your members of Congress, saying, what are you guys doing about this? What are you doing? Because they’re not doing anything.

I mean, they’re asking some questions. They want to get documents. There are some members who kind of are upset about this, as we are, but they’re fully funding the Justice Department and the FBI. There’s been no financial or budgetary consequences or even policy changes out of Congress, despite this wild abuse of power by the Justice Department and FBI, a Congress nominally controlled by Republicans. And I’m tired of it. Of course, I’ve been tired of it for nearly three decades here at Judicial Watch. But I’m willing to be upset on behalf of the American people for as long as it takes, because we only got one country, and it’s worth protecting.

So there was big news this week about the issue of birthright citizenship, as the Supreme Court held oral arguments about President Trump’s executive order essentially upholding the notion that unless you’re a legal resident of the United States, your child, if it’s born here, isn’t automatically a citizen under the current reading of the Constitution and the and federal law, which essentially codifies the relevant constitutional provision. An illegal alien can show up here, even for 10 minutes, have a kid, the kid becomes a citizen. And that’s just objectionable to me on its face and strains credulity that anyone would think that it complies with the Constitution and the relevant Part of the Constitution that the Supreme Court was grappling with was the 14th amendment.

And here’s the section at issue. It’s relatively straightforward. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. 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. Okay, so what does that mean to you? Okay, there’s a, there’s a clause there. If you’re born or naturalized here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, does that mean that, you know, the provisions typically have been. An invading army isn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, a foreign diplomat isn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, etc.

But is an illegal alien subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under this reading of the Constitution. That’s the debate, and it’s an important one. And I don’t know how the Supreme Court’s going to come out after this oral argument. I’ll talk about that in a bit. But it’s so important. To his credit, President Trump attended the Supreme Court argument in person, first time a president, according to reports, has ever done so, which is surprising to me. And I’m glad he did it, because the left was going apoplectic because he’s trying to intimidate the judges or the justices, which is just absurd.

He’s the President of the United States. He has a right to attend these proceedings like any other citizen and certainly his president. But I’m also glad he did it. And I would recommend every president attend Supreme Court proceedings either when they’re president or if they’re even thinking about running for president, because the oral arguments are, you know, obviously we get the opinions of the court. That tells us what they’re thinking in terms of the final thoughts. Right. But the only public engagement or operations of the court in terms of seeing the individual justices ask questions and interact with each other occur at these oral arguments.

And it would seem to me, if you’re picking justices to be appointed and confirmed to be confirmed and appointed, or you’re trying to evaluate how the justices you have picked are performing on the bench, what better way than to show up and watch and know? Listening to it audio is important and gives you some flavor of what goes on. But there’s no substitution for showing up in court and watching the interaction and the questioning. And I encourage, if you’re here in Washington, D.C. you get to go visit Washington, D.C. i encourage everyone to visit our nation’s capital, the Supreme Court, if they’re in Session and conducting arguments.

Try to get in. Try to get in. It’s easier than you think. And there are ways of, you know, look it up to see how you can attend a Supreme Court argument. I won’t, I won’t bore you with that, but I am so happy that the President attended the Supreme Court argument. And how did it go? Well, you know, as I said, the core issue is, and I think the President has the better of the argument because it’s a, let’s be clear. It’s a complicated argument. And I mean, just because I think it’s ridiculous doesn’t mean there’s not.

Hey, Fitton, look, this is the way we’ve been doing it for 150 years. It makes life a lot easier. We, we don’t have to figure out if a baby’s parents were citizens or not citizens, just babies that are born. We just consider citizens, and it just makes things easier. And that may be a policy that may be persuasive, policy wise. It’s not persuasive constitutional wise. But my point is this case could go either way. And I think the President has the stronger of the arguments. This is, I think this is a quote from his executive order.

It doesn’t matter. But because it’s, it is the president’s position. The 14th amendment I posted this 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 USC 1401, generally mirroring the 14th Amendment’s text. So in theory, Congress could have expanded its citizenship statutorily to include additional people, but they kept it to the line set by the Constitution or the floor set by the Constitution.

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 when that person won, 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 the said person’s birthday or 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 a visa waiver program or visiting as a student, work or tourist on a student, work or tourist visa, and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the said person’s birthday.

That makes sense to me. That makes sense to me. And in this day and age where we have millions of non citizens coming into the United States, the idea that the resulting anchor babies are citizens because of this clause of the 14th Amendment, it just doesn’t hold water with me. Now you can examine the case more carefully and look at the arguments to and fro as to what subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It seems to me an illegal alien, and this is my common sense approach, an illegal alien avoiding the law to cross the border illegally or overstaying a visa, for example, and residing here knowingly and willfully illegally is rejecting the jurisdiction of the United States necessarily just as an invading army might be.

They are saying, I am not going to follow your law on lawful presence. I am above that. How on earth is an illegal alien present in knowing violation of the law, subject to the jurisdiction thereof under the sense listed here in the 14th Amendment? To me, their presence is a rejection of such jurisdiction. Just because they can be arrested. That’s not what they mean by subject to the jurisdiction in the context. Subject to the jurisdiction is someone who is not. Who is a non citizen who is not here lawfully or is here in such a temporary fashion as to make it nonsensical that their child becomes a citizen just because they’re passing through.

So we’ve clipped out a few portions of the argument for you and you can listen to the full argument. I think we’ll put a link below. I think the transcript is probably out there by now as well. So if you don’t want to listen, you can read it. And I encourage you to read it because you may. Although this one you might not come across, you might come away more confused than if you just read maybe the government’s briefs and the opponent’s briefs, all of which are accessible. I mean, you don’t have to be a lawyer to figure this out.

You know, you just can be persuaded as a citizen. I mean, in the end, it’s about us, right? I mean, the Constitution is something that can be changed. For example, the Supreme Court finds it to be okay for illegal alien invaders to have children and they get the benefit of citizenship and all the privileges thereof. We can change the Constitution. So this is a fight about how we govern ourselves and, and our sovereignty. And you have a right to understand it and weigh in, in my view, Getting a little heated about this because I think this is the exact opposite of what a serious country would be doing.

And the fact that we’re even at this stage to me is just unbelievable. So here’s a section where just of the argument where Justice Alito was making, I think, some salient points, but to be fair to the ACLU lawyer, he was arguing on behalf of the petitioners, made some good points back and forth. So here, listen. Not subject to any foreign power is pretty straightforward. So let me give you these examples. A boy is born here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally. That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth, and he has a duty to provide military service to the Iranian government.

Is he not subject to any foreign power? Not within the meaning of the 1866 Act, Justice Alito, and that’s clear from Wong Kim Ark and it’s clear from the debates. What the framers meant by the phrase not subject to any foreign power was referring to the ambassador exception. If it meant what the government contends basically not a subject of any foreign power that you were that another country considers you a you sanguineous citizen, then lawful permanent residents, all foreign national, ordinary public. Ordinary public meaning of that, that would certainly encompass that boy, would it not? Justice Alito, if you think that the language of the 1866 act was ambiguous, as Wong Kim Ark says, the shift to the language of the 14th Amendment, which is the operative text, certainly clears up any ambiguity.

What I said about a boy born to an Iranian father is true of children born here to parents who were nationals of other countries, If I’m correct, it’s true. To a child who’s born here to Russian parents, it’s true. To a child who’s born here to Mexican parents, they’re automatically citizens or nationals of those countries and have a duty of military service. It sure seems like that makes them subject to a foreign power. But again, Justice Alito, that would have meant that the children of Irish, Italian and other immigrants which Wong Kim Ark refers to and the debate the framers refer to would not have been citizens either.

Because if the only test is whether that US born child is considered a citizen by another country under their eu sanguineous laws, then no foreign nationals children would well, in all of those cases cases, the parents could be naturalized and then the children would be derivatively naturalized when the parents were naturalized. So what they were talking about, I think, was that 1866 citizenship law that preceded the 14th Amendment that most observers have pointed to as an indication of what they meant by subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And I think in the 1866 law, the language was for citizenship, not subject to foreign power.

I mean, I just am aghast that anyone would think that an illegal alien just coming across the border, residing here illegally gets the benefit of citizenship for their children. I don’t buy it. You know, maybe you are. Maybe you buy it. Maybe there are conservative justices that buy it. It looks like there might be a few. Here’s Chief Justice Roberts arguing with the Solicitor General, John Sauer. Sauer was referencing, and you’ll hear him referencing the birth tourism industry where most infamously, Chinese communists essentially run operations where Chinese citizens come to the United States, have babies and leave and their babies become citizens and they get all the benefits and access to the United States while essentially being subjects of China, practically speaking, given their familial ties.

But how is that like not the equivalent of invading army? I don’t know how anyone could think otherwise. I think the last stat I checked is like at least 35,000 have occurred. I don’t know if it was annually or at least recently, but the numbers are significant. And obviously it’s an inducement for illegal aliens to come here to the United States. If they know if they have children here, whether or not they’re lawfully present, the children become citizens. That would be the biggest inducement to come here illegally for many. They’re human beings who wouldn’t want their children to be US Citizens given how great our country is.

So here’s the little round robin between the Solicitor General of the United States and the Chief justice of the supreme court. There are 500, 500 birth tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth in return to, to. To that nation. Having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us? I think it’s, I quote what Justice Kalia said in his Hamdan dissent, where they had where like their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment.

I think that shows that they made a mess. They interpretation has made a mess of the provision. Well, it certainly wasn’t a problem in the 19th century. No, but of course we’re in a new world now. Justice Lito pointed out to where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a, a child who’s a U.S. citizen. Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same constitution. Yeah. With all due respect to the Chief’s point, it’s doesn’t answer the. He’s not answering the question, does that language result in the absurd notion that those 500 tourist agents, tourist birth agencies in China, can gain citizenship in this abusive manner, invasive manner.

And I think John Sauer has the better of the argument that the writers of the 14th Amendment, that’s not what they were planning on. Now, there’s a Supreme Court opinion that overruled another Supreme Court opinion that said otherwise, suggesting that illegal aliens here could be citizens or their children could be citizens if they’re born here. Well, the argument, just so you know, generally, the Wong ARC opinion that’s referenced repeatedly, does it say it as directly as its defenders suggest? So I don’t know how this decision’s going to go out in the end. I don’t know what the outcome’s going to be.

I have no clue, based on what I read about the hearing, what I listened to, what I read. Now, what I found interesting is that many thought going into the argument that the president was going to lose big time, that it was going to be a rout. Well, it didn’t turn into a rout because the ACLU received as many tough questions as President Trump’s lawyer did the Solicitor General. So it’s going to be closer. But many are predicting that President Trump’s position on this case, and I think the most constitutional position on this case won’t win out.

But on the other hand, I guess hope springs eternal, right? I just don’t know that the Supreme Court is willing to say, or at least there’s a majority of the court willing to say, that someone like Joe Biden can let 20 million people into the United States and they’re here illegally, and any of them who have children, their children get to be citizens because they’re, quote, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It just doesn’t make any sense. That’s the fair reading of the Constitution. And to me, to kind of cement that in a constitutional, in a Supreme Court opinion would be extreme.

I think it would be an extremist position to say that, to make that type of pronouncement. Now, the Supreme Court will say that’s what we’re paid to do. I’m like, well, no, you’re not. You’re not paid to make a pronouncement with certainty in an area in the lease which is uncertain. I mean, you could. I mean, as a jurist, you could look at the 14th amendment. Let’s bring that up. I mean, to be fair, even to people who don’t know what it means, it’s like all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you could say, look, I don’t have enough information as to what that means, so therefore I’m not going to rule one way or the other.

I don’t know what it means. This is where, not being a lawyer, I’d be interested to know what the constitutional lawyers think of that position. It’s like, I don’t know. Right. Or you could be. I guess my point is I don’t because I’m not sure what it means. I’m unwilling to say it means X or Y. It may not mean that every non citizen who has a child here in all circumstances, who isn’t lawfully present, that child is not a citizen. But it also may not mean, also the extreme version, the opposite side, that say, you just come in here for a minute and a half, you have the baby, the baby’s a citizen, you go on to your next stop, go right straight back to China.

So it’s going to be interesting to see, and I’m hopeful that the Supreme Court comes down with a compromise position that protects our sovereignty and our citizenship from being further decimated, because it already has been by the left. Because in the end, remember what the left wants. And this is kind of what this fight, in my view, is about from the left perspective. They want to eliminate the distinctions between citizens and noncitizens. They hate the United States. They hate the idea of nation states. They want one world government, the equivalent thereof. Let’s be blunt. They don’t like the idea of citizenship and special rights attending to someone because they’re a citizen of a nation.

Now, they sometimes may say that, but they don’t believe it. They only say it for convenience purposes when it’s convenient to them. So they want to end citizenship as we know it. So in many ways, the Supreme Court argument here, and I’m saying the justices are thinking this way, even those who disagree with me, but it’s what it’s about. What does citizenship mean? Do we have citizens of the United States that have a meaningfully distinct legal status here in the United States? The left is opposed to that. They want them to vote, they want them to get your money, they want to protect them from deportation no matter what they do.

How else can you conclude that? They believe in citizen, they believe in citizenship. They don’t. They don’t. So this is a bigger story than just one Supreme Court decision. This is about whether we’re going to have a country or not. Because if you don’t have citizens or the idea of citizenship, you don’t have a country. So, dear citizen, we’ll find out in a few months what the Supreme Court thinks on this. But in the meantime, you can be sure that Judicial Watch will continue to participate in this debate and also seek the enforcement of the immigration laws as they were written to protect us from those politicians and bureaucrats, et cetera, who want to allow the law to be broken to destroy the republic.

So Judicial Watch has a long record of trying to hold the Fed, the Federal Reserve, accountable to the rule of law. We’ve had litigation and long fights over transparency there. And we just commenced another important fight against the Fed over improper secrecy and cover up of a potential scandal. We sued the Fed under the Freedom of Information act for grand jury subpoenas tied to the testimony of Jerome Powell and who knows what else about a $2.5 billion headquarters renovation. $2.5 billion headquarters renovation. I mean, we could send him. I mean, I would think we could send a man to the moon.

I know Artemis is up there now. So for $2.5 billion, I suspect we could probably do that. Maybe Musk could do that for $2.5 billion. The idea you need to renovate a building, I don’t care how historic it is, how big it is, for two and a half billion dollars. It’s absurd, especially a government building. Do you come to Washington, D.C. to visit the Federal Reserve? Come on. So the question is, is there corruption there? Is there waste, fraud and abuse? Did Jerome Powell, when he testified, the Federal Reserve chair, did he testify truthfully when he was talking about it? There’s an argument about whether he did testify truthfully or not.

But there’s also an issue about whether it was waste, fraud and abuse in the process of the spending associated with this forever and a day rehabilitation project. And so what happened was Jeannie Pirro, who is the head of the U.S. attorney’s office here in Washington, D.C. issued, I think, two subpoenas to the Fed about this issue. Left wing jurist Chief Judge James Boasberg threw out the subpoenas. The grand jury subpoenas, incredibly, a political decision saying that Trump just wanted to go after, wanted interest rates to be cut and this is why the subpoenas were issued. It’s just ridiculous that he would think that because Trump has criticized the Federal Reserve, he’s therefore.

The Federal Reserve is therefore immune from a grand jury subpoena. The Federal Reserve is not above the law, judge. So that’s still playing out. But the interesting thing is once the subpoena went to the Federal Reserve It’s a Federal Reserve document and it should be subject to foia. So we want to know what was being investigated and why they’re so worried about complying with the subpoenas. That’s why we asked and they gave us the proverbial hand to the face. In a public statement in January 2026, Powell disclosed that the Justice Department had served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas threatening a criminal indictment related to his June 2025 testimony, 2025 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee.

That testimony addressed in part the multi year renovation of the Mariner S Eccles building. Eccles. I think it’s Eccles Building. In the adjacent Federal Reserve east building. During his testimony, Powell denied the existence of luxury features such as a private dining room, special elevators, rooftop gardens and other high end elements. The renovation project, originally estimated at approximately 1.9 billion, has ballooned to 2.5 billion and generated questions about cost overruns. In July of 2025, the committee sent a formal oversight letter to Powell highlighting discrepancies between the testimony and the approved renovation plans, raising concerns about transparency and accountability for the big project.

The letter points out that previously approved plans by the National Capital Planning Commission appear to reference some of the luxury features, raising questions about whether the plans changed, the features were removed, or the testimony was incomplete. Trump administration officials, including then Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vogt, sharply criticized the restoration project or renovation project. Vogt publicly compared aspects of the renovation to elements that belong in France’s palace of Versailles. And as I noted, Chief Justice U.S. district Chief Judge James E. Boasberg nullified the Justice Department grand jury subpoenas not once, but twice. I guess they went back for a second bite and they were, I think today they were told no.

So it looks like there’ll probably be an appeal. So why are we not getting these grand jury documents? They said it’s for law enforcement, that it would interfere with a law enforcement investigation. Well, whose law enforcement investigation? The Fed isn’t conducting a law enforcement investigation. It’s the Justice Department that was investigating a law conducting a law enforcement investigation. Under the rules, under the law, a federal agency can only attempt to withhold documents if it will interfere with that federal agency’s own law enforcement investigation. They got a subpoena from another agency that they’re opposing. Now if we ask the Justice Department for the grand jury subpoenas, they tell us to go jump in a lake.

But we’re not asking them. We’re asking the recipients of the grand jury subpoena. They can disclose the subpoena. There’s no law enforcement investigation they’re conducting that involves this grand jury subpoena. Where’s that coming from? So it’s kind of an interesting issue, isn’t it? And now the Justice Department’s going to have to. How is it going to represent the Federal Reserve here? I don’t think they. I think they should agree with Judicial Watch here. So it’s kind of a conundrum. Right. And I think the grand jury subpoenas will be educational about what the Federal Reserve has been up to about how the money was being spent and what issues arose related to potential criminal activity that the Justice Department is interested in investigating.

Now, typically, as I said, we couldn’t get that from the Justice Department because they do have that privilege to withhold information, that potential exemption. But the recipient of the subpoena, another federal agency, doesn’t have it. So we’ll see what the courts do with this one. But it’s a real interesting one. And even if they have the privilege, it’s not. It’s. Prudential. They don’t have to. They’re not required to withhold the material. They can release it. So they can make the judgment call to release it. So why are they hiding in this material? What is the Fed hiding about its massive $2.5 billion building renovation? We’re in court to find out.

The Fed is one of these agencies that has little to no oversight. And here, this is what I love about Judicial Watch. We figured out a way to give them a little oversight, and they’ve come up with specious arguments to keep us from getting the records. And now it’s going to be up to a federal court to decide whether they can hide a document about another federal investigation and pretend it’s theirs by pretending it’s theirs, meaning their federal investigation. I mean, if it sounds like Alice in Wonderland arguments, because it is. It is. So I’ll let you know how things proceed there.

But it’s been a big week at Judicial Watch with the disclosures of the Mar a Lago FBI documents that demonstrate the FBI didn’t want to raid the home of Trump and they were forced to by the Biden Justice Department. To me, it’s demonstrable evidence of criminal conduct that should be pursued forthwith by appropriate authorities. That alone, in my view, is reason to support Judicial Watch. If you’re not already supporting Judicial Watch, I encourage you to do so. Go to Judicial Watch.org Judicial Watch.org and make your most generous donation now. And of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t wish you all the joy and peace of Easter.

I know we’re celebrating. Many of you are celebrating Passover as well. So I wish those of you celebrating Passover a happy Passover as well. But God bless all of you during this especially Holy time for all, for many of us. I’ll see you here next time on the Judicial Watch weekly update. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below.
[tr:tra].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.