OP-ED: Trump Sees a Way Out in the Kavanaugh Controversy, Despite His Defeat

A Legal Interpretation Deemed Untenable

Amy Swearer, a legal expert with the group Advancing American Freedom, stated that there is “no real immediate path” to realizing the president’s hope, noting that such a change would require a “complete reversal” by one of the five majority justices who ruled on the matter from a constitutional standpoint. According to her, “no law passed by Congress could circumvent the meaning—or at least the floor—established by the Constitution.”

Professor Hiroshi Motomura of the UCLA School of Law was even more direct, calling Trump’s reaction “desperate,” adding that “the Court was very intentional in making this a constitutional decision” rather than a mere statutory issue that it could have referred back to Congress. In his view, the president’s media appearance is more a matter of political strategy than a genuine legal avenue.

When two legal experts from different sides agree that the door is essentially closed, it becomes difficult to see Trump’s remarks as anything other than a political PR stunt intended to keep the issue in the spotlight.

Tough Talk That Masks a Legal Failure

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson stated that the president “remains fully committed to protecting the value of U.S. birthright citizenship,” adding that the administration would “redouble its efforts to secure the border and deport undocumented immigrants.” She also noted that the Department of Justice would prioritize investigations into “birth tourism schemes.”

This tough rhetoric, which emphasizes the tools still available to the administration, attempts to divert attention from the fact that the main tool—the initial executive order—was ruled unconstitutional by the nation’s highest court. It is a classic public relations maneuver: turning a defeat into a mere administrative setback.

I note with some irritation this habit of framing every legal defeat as merely a step toward a promised future victory—a rhetoric that slowly erodes institutional credibility.

Mike Johnson Holds Off on Legislative Action

House Speaker Mike Johnson has not completely ruled out legislative action, stating that lawmakers would “continue to examine this,” while acknowledging in the same breath that “the conclusion of this ruling is that the Constitution must be amended to resolve this.” This cautious yet clear-eyed response clearly illustrates the political difficulty of going against such a clear ruling by the Supreme Court.

A constitutional amendment requires a supermajority in both houses of Congress as well as ratification by three-quarters of the states—a threshold that is virtually unattainable in today’s polarized political climate. This reality makes the president’s hope even more theoretical than it already seems.

To see a political ally of the president admit, almost reluctantly, that only a constitutional amendment could resolve the issue speaks volumes about the gap between presidential rhetoric and institutional reality.

A government that continually tests the limits of the law

This case involving birthright citizenship is not an isolated incident. Since the start of its second term, the Trump administration has issued a series of executive orders challenged in federal courts, several of which have been blocked or overturned by federal courts across the country. This approach—which involves governing by executive order and then defending those orders in court—reveals a deliberate strategy to continually push the boundaries of executive power.

Each legal defeat seems to follow the same pattern: a public statement downplaying the significance of the setback, followed by a promise to find a new way to achieve the original goal. This cycle gradually erodes institutional trust and fuels a perception of contempt for the authority of federal courts.

This repetition of the same pattern—a contested executive order, followed by a defeat, followed by a new promise—is no longer an isolated incident but rather a method of governance that treats the courts as a temporary obstacle rather than an institution to be respected.

Prolonged Uncertainty Despite the Legal Victory

Despite the clarity of the Supreme Court’s decision, the president’s continued rhetoric about possible future legislation maintains a climate of legal uncertainty for immigrant families directly affected by this issue. This uncertainty, even though it has no solid legal basis according to the experts cited, can have very real effects on the daily lives of those affected, ranging from anxiety to mistrust of institutions.

Immigrant rights organizations have warned that this type of presidential rhetoric, even without an immediate legal basis, contributes to a climate of fear that extends far beyond the strictly legal scope of the Court’s decision.

I believe that the psychological impact of these presidential statements on families—who, despite a clear legal victory, continue to live in uncertainty due to deliberately perpetuated political rhetoric—is too often underestimated.

An issue that will remain in the spotlight until election day

Despite the unfavorable legal outcome, Donald Trump and his political camp have every interest in keeping this issue in the public eye until the next elections. The question of birthright citizenship remains a rallying cry for part of the Republican base, regardless of its actual legal viability as determined by the Supreme Court.

This political exploitation of a legal defeat is nothing new in American history, but it illustrates once again how constitutional issues can be turned into tools for electoral mobilization, at the risk of clouding the public’s understanding of the actual state of the law.

I find this ability to turn an irrevocable constitutional defeat into electoral fuel particularly cynical, as if legal truth mattered less than mobilizing the base.

Between Necessary Firmness and Institutional Drift

This issue of birthright citizenship illustrates a central tension in Donald Trump’s second term: a hardline stance on immigration that, while addressing legitimate concerns about border security, is all too often accompanied by an open disregard for the constitutional limits established by the courts. The defeat before the Supreme Court should have put an end to the debate; instead, it merely shifted it to a new political avenue whose viability remains, at best, highly uncertain.

Episodes like this serve as a reminder that the strength of American institutions rests on the willingness of its leaders to accept judicial decisions—even unfavorable ones—rather than constantly seeking ways to circumvent them through rhetoric or circumventing legislation.

A precedent to watch closely

It will be up to voters, members of Congress, and federal courts to continue playing their role as checks and balances against this persistent tendency to test constitutional limits. Democratic vigilance, in this context, is not a matter of partisanship but of preserving the very balance of powers that has characterized the American system since its founding.

I conclude this post convinced that a president who refuses to admit a clear constitutional defeat erodes, one case at a time, the public’s trust in the institutions meant to adjudicate these conflicts.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist