Universities pressured to strip names of Epstein associates from campus buildings

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — In rain, snow and bitter cold, a steady drumbeat of small protests have been held in recent months on the Ohio State University main campus with a single goal in mind: removing billionaire retail mogul Les Wexner's name from buildings where it's emblazoned.

US Epstein Building Names

At issue — for union nurses at OSU's Wexner Medical Center, for former athletes at the Les Wexner Football Complex, and for some student leaders who may walk past the Wexner Center for the Arts near the campus oval — is Wexner'swell-documented associationwith the late sexual predatorJeffrey Epstein.

Similar cries are arising over a Wexner-named building at Harvard University and others around the country named for different Epstein associates, includingSteve Tisch,Casey Wasserman,Glenn DubinandHoward Lutnick.

It's all part of thebacklash across higher educationagainst figures with ties to Epstein, who cultivated an extensive network including powerful people in the arts, business and academia. Scrutiny has landed on university donors as well as several academics whose emails with Epstein surfaced in the latest files, including some whohave resigned.

Wexner complaints cite Epstein association

Wexner hasn't been charged with any crime in connection with Epstein, the one-time financial adviser by whom he sayshe was "duped."

But a group of former Ohio State athletes who surviveda sweeping sexual abuse scandal at the schoolargues that theretired L Brands founder's generosity to his alma mater is now tainted by the knowledge that Epstein was entangled in many of his family's spending decisions, including around the football complex's naming.

"Ohio State University cannot credibly separate itself from these facts, nor can it justify continuing to honor Les Wexner with an athletic facility," their naming removal request read. It went on, "To do so is to ignore the voices of survivors, former athletes, and the broader community who expect accountability, transparency, and moral leadership."

At Harvard, a group of students and faculty at the prestigious Kennedy School has targeted the Leslie H. Wexner Building and the Wexner-Sunshine Lobby. The renaming request submitted in March cites Wexner's "strong ties to Epstein" and argues Epstein profited off Wexner, "which enabled Epstein to use his wealth and power to traffic and abuse children and women."

Some Harvard students and alumni also want the Farkas name removed from Farkas Hall, which hosts the Hasty Pudding TheatricalsMan and Woman of the Year. The building was renamed in 2011 following a significant donation from Andrew Farkas, graduate chairman of the Hasty Pudding Institute, in honor of his father.

Farkas had a longtime personal and business relationship with Epstein, including co-owning a marina with him in the Caribbean. He also repeatedly asked Epstein to donate to Hasty Pudding. Between roughly 2013 and 2019, Epstein regularly donating $50,000 annually to secure top-tier donor status, for a total of more than $300,000.

"As I've said repeatedly, I deeply regret ever having met this individual, but at no time have I conducted myself inappropriately," Farkas said in a statement.

Pressure building on campuses

Pushback against buildings named for Epstein associates is growing on some U.S. campuses.

Just last weekend, the student body at Haverford College in Pennsylvania voted to urge President Wendy Raymond to forge ahead with the renaming process for the Allison &Howard LutnickLibrary. The building is named for the U.S. commerce secretary who has facedresignation callsover his relationship with Epstein.

Raymond had said ina February open letterthat she wasn't ready to do that. In a statement to The Associated Press following Sunday's vote, Raymond said she respected the process and would respond to the resolution within the customary 30-day period.

At Ohio State, pleas against the Wexner name are making their way through a five-stepreview procedure, most of which takes place outside public view and with no set timeline. The university's new president, Ravi Bellamkonda said, "I think the process is thorough, fair, and open, and I will promise you that we will give each request a full consideration."

A spokesman for Harvard confirmed the school has received the Wexner-related name removal request but would not comment further. It would be the university's second name change, after the John Winthrop House, which bore the name of a Harvard professor and a like-named ancestor, was changed to Winthrop House in July over their connections to slavery.

Advertisement

Tufts University, home to the Tisch Library and theSteve TischSports and Fitness Center, said it continues to look at the matter. The library has moved to clarify that it was not named for Steve, but, in 1992, for his father Preston Tisch, an honored alum. The sports center removed a set of Steve Tisch's handprints during spring break. The university said that was part of a planned renovation.

UCLA'sWassermanFootball Center and Stony Brook University'sDubinFamily Athletic Performance Center also are named for Epstein associates.

Namings often tied to philanthropic giving

The current clamor bears some resemblance to the controversy that surrounded the wealthySackler family's culpabilityin the deadly opioid crisis, because in both cases the institutions involved hadreceived vast sumsfrom the family.

Some major institutions — including museums in New York and Paris, Tufts and the University of Oxford in England — did remove the Sackler name, but Harvard chose not to. In a 15-page report explaining its 2024 decision, the university said the legacy of Arthur M. Sackler, whose company Purdue Pharma made the potent opioid OxyContin, was "complex, ambiguous and debatable."

The Epstein associates whose names are on campus buildings also are typically generous donors, as well as alumni.

Wexner, his wife Abigail and their charities have given Ohio State well over $200 million over the years, for example. That included $100 million to benefit the Wexner Medical Center; at least $15 million for the Wexner Center, a contemporary art museum named for Wexner's father, Harry; and $5 million split with an Epstein-run foundation toward construction of the football complex. The Wexners have given another $42 million to the Harvard Kennedy School.

A moral and financial bind for universities

Anne Bergeron, a museum consultant and author who specializes in the ethics of building naming rights in the cultural sector, said universities are serious about their gift acceptance standards while also recognizing that the conduct of individual donors may be judged differently over time.

"It's no surprise that a lot of these situations arise within the university sphere, because with students — especially the younger generation — there is virtually no tolerance for being associated with anyone who doesn't represent the best of humanity," she said

She called this "a moment of reckoning" for universities and said they have to guard against the appearance of a quid pro quo in their building namings.

Michael Oser, a Columbus-area resident, articulated the frustration of some defenders of retaining the Wexner name in a recent letter-to-the-editor of The Columbus Dispatch.

"OSU took the money. Built the buildings. Cut the ribbons. Smiled for the photos There were no formal 'morality clauses' attached back then, just gratitude and applause," he wrote. "Now, years later, some want to play moral referee while the university keeps the cash and the concrete. That's not accountability. That's convenience."

Supporters of name removal see opportunity for healing

Lauren Barnes, a student in the Kennedy School's master's program leading the effort to remove Wexner's name, said she struggles most days as a survivor of sexual abuse and the mother of a 14-year-old to walk into a building with a name linked to Epstein.

"Thinking about all the children in this world that deserve safety and also all the survivors on campus that have to walk under the Wexner name, I know what that's like to have my heart race and my hands get sweaty," she said. "I hate that anyone else has to have that feeling walking under that name and just dealing with it kind of everywhere on campus."

One protester at Ohio State, Audrey Brill, told a local ABC affiliate that it now "feels gross" thinking of women delivering babies at OSU's Wexner Medical Center "given everything that we're learning about where this money went" — and she feels removing Wexner's name could help.

Some protesters also want the name of Dr. Mark Landon, a prominent Ohio State gynecologist who received five-figure quarterly payments from Epstein between 2001 and 2005, removed from a visitor's lounge in the hospital's new $2 billion, 26-story tower. Landon have said the money was for biotech investment consulting for Wexner, not health care for Epstein or any of his victims.

Casey contributed from Boston.

byAdministrator

in

April 02, 2026

Universities pressured to strip names of Epstein associates from campus buildings

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — In rain, snow and bitter cold, a steady drumbeat of small protests have been held in recent months ...

Read More

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro raises record $10 million in 2026

Pennsylvania Gov.Josh Shapiro's reelection campaignsays it raised more than $10 million in the first three months of 2026, which sets anew state record for that reporting period.

According to a top Shapiro campaign official, the total more than doubles the previous benchmark for a Pennsylvania gubernatorial race at this stage. The official says the haul puts the campaignin a strong financial position after ending 2025 with over $30 million cash on hand.

The fundraising haul was first reported byAxios.

The contributions came from all 67 counties in Pennsylvania and across all 50 states, reflecting what a top Shapiro aide described as broad national and in-state support. The contributions from across the country show his deepening national donor network ahead of a potential 2028 presidential run.

Shapiro's book, "Where We Keep the Light," was released in January, and he kicked off a nationwide book tour that included national appearances such as "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert."

Shapiro is donating $250,000 to the state party, focusing on party infastructrue and on flipping four GOP-held battleground seats, the official said.

Advertisement

Shapiro, a potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender who was also considered a possible running mate for Kamala Harris in 2024, is expected to faceRepublican state Treasurer Stacy Garrityin the gubernatorial general election as he seeks a second term in November. Pennsylvania's primary will be on May 19.

Shapiro reaffirmed Tuesday that he won't make a decision about 2028 until after the midterm elections while at a book tour stop in Erie, Pennsylvania.

"So the only thing I'm focused on, the only thing I think anyone should be focused on, is having a national referendum in these midterms, having an extraordinary turnout for state representative, state senator, Congress, governor — I'm on the ballot again this year," Shapiro said, according to theErie Times-News. "It is really, really important we have a national referendum, sending a clear message that we do not like what we're seeing in Washington, D.C."

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon weighs in on Iran war's economic impacts

Hawaii doctor's son testifies that his father confessed to trying to kill his stepmother

Watch: Artemis II launches on historic moon mission | Special Report

byAdministrator

in

April 02, 2026

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro raises record $10 million in 2026

Pennsylvania Gov.Josh Shapiro's reelection campaignsays it raised more than $10 million in the first three months of ...

Read More

Passengers Left in Middle of Busy Traffic After Over 100 Self-Driving Taxis Stop Running in 'System Malfunction'

Over 100 self-driving taxis in China stopped mid-traffic due to a system malfunction, stranding passengers in busy streets

NEED TO KNOW

• No injuries were reported, though videos posted online showed widespread disruption and at least one crash involving a halted vehicle.

• The incident adds to growing concerns about autonomous vehicle safety, following recent issues in the U.S. involving driverless cars

Passengers in Wuhan, China, were left stranded in the middle of busy streets after a large group of self-driving taxis stopped working at the same time.

A mass outage involving at least 100 robotaxis caused the vehicles to halt mid-traffic on Tuesday evening, with authorities later attributing the disruption to a "system malfunction." Officials did not provide further details, and no injuries were reported, per theAssociated Press.

Videoscirculating on social media showed driverless cars sitting motionless in active roadways, some blocking lanes and intersections.In one clip, a crash involving a stopped vehicle could be seen, though theBBC reportedthere were no injuries and that passengers were able to exit the vehicles safely.

The vehicles are operated by Apollo Go, an autonomous ride-hailing service run by Chinese tech company Baidu. The company has been expanding its robotaxi operations across China and has plans to grow internationally, according toCNBC.

For passengers inside the cars, the experience was both confusing and unsettling.

Advertisement

According to the Associated Press, one passenger told Chinese media that their robotaxi stopped shortly after turning a corner. A message displayed on the vehicle's screen read, "Driving system malfunction. Staff are expected to arrive in 5 minutes." When no one arrived, the passenger pressed an SOS button and was again told that help was on the way. The rider was ultimately able to open the door and exit the vehicle on their own.

The Wuhan incident comes amid a series of recent issues involving self-driving vehicles, both in the United States and abroad.

Never miss a story — sign up forPEOPLE's free daily newsletterto stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

In December, a widespreadpower outage in San Franciscoleft roughly 130,000 homes and businesses without electricity, PEOPLE reported at the time. During the blackout, driverless cars were unable to function properly without traffic signals, stopping in the middle of roads and contributing to traffic jams.

Read the original article onPeople

byAdministrator

in

April 02, 2026

Passengers Left in Middle of Busy Traffic After Over 100 Self-Driving Taxis Stop Running in 'System Malfunction'

Over 100 self-driving taxis in China stopped mid-traffic due to a system malfunction, stranding passengers in busy street...

Read More

Immigrants seeking asylum are ordered to countries they've never been to, but end up stuck in limbo

The Afghan man had fled the Taliban for refuge in upstate New York when U.S. immigration authorities ordered him deported to Uganda. The Cuban woman was working at a Texas Chick-fil-A when she was arrested after a minor traffic accident and told she was being sent to Ecuador.

Immigration Third Country Deportations

There's the Mauritanian man living in Michigan told he'd have to go to Uganda, the Venezuelan mother in Ohio told she'd be sent to Ecuador and the Bolivians, Ecuadorians and so many others across the country ordered sent to Honduras.

They are among more than 13,000 immigrants who were living legally in the U.S., waiting for rulings on asylum claims, when they suddenly faced so-calledthird-countrydeportation orders,destined for countrieswheremost had no ties, according to the nonprofit group Mobile Pathways, which pushes for transparency in immigration proceedings.

Yet few have been deported, even as the White House pushes forever more immigrant expulsions. Thanks to unexplained changes in U.S. policy, many are now mired in immigration limbo, unable to argue theirasylum claimsin court and unsure if they'll be shackled and put on a deportation flight to a country they've never seen.

Some are in detention, though it's unclear how many. All have lost permission to work legally, a right most had while pursuing their asylum claims, compounding the worry and dread that has rippled through immigrant communities.

And that may be the point.

"This administration's goal is to instill fear into people. That's the primary thing," said Cassandra Charles, a senior staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, which has been fighting the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda. The fear of being deported to an unknown country could, advocates believe, drive migrants to abandon their immigration cases and decide to return to their home countries.

Things may be changing.

In mid-March, top Immigration and Customs Enforcement legal officials told field attorneys with the Department of Homeland Security in an email to stop filing new motions for third-country deportations tied to asylum cases. The email, which has been seen by The Associated Press, did not give a reason. It has not been publicly released, and DHS did not respond to requests to explain if the halt was permanent.

But the earlier deportation cases? Those are continuing.

An asylum-seeker says she's in panic over possibly being sent to a country she doesn't know

In 2024, a Guatemalan woman who says she had been held captive and repeatedly sexually assaulted by members of powerful gang arrived with her 4-year-old daughter at the U.S.-Mexico border and asked for asylum. She later discovered she was pregnant with another child, conceived during a rape.

In December, she sat in a San Francisco immigration courtroom and listened as an ICE attorney sought to have her deported.

The ICE attorney didn't ask the judge that she be sent back to Guatemala. Instead, the attorney said, the woman from the Indigenous Guatemalan highlands would go to one of three countries: Ecuador, Honduras or across the globe to Uganda.

Until that moment, she'd never heard of Ecuador or Uganda.

"When I arrived in this country, I was filled with hope again and I thanked God for being alive," the woman said after the hearing, her eyes filling with tears. "When I think about having to go to those other countries, I panic because I hear they are violent and dangerous." She spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing reprisal from U.S. immigration authorities or the Guatemalan gang network.

There have been more than 13,000 removal orders for asylum-seekers

ICE attorneys, the de facto prosecutors in immigration courts, were first instructed last summer to file motions known as "pretermissions" that end migrants' asylum claims and allow them to be deported.

"They're not saying the person doesn't have a claim," said Sarah Mehta, who tracks immigration issues at the American Civil Liberties Union. "They're just saying, 'We're kicking this case completely out of court and we're going to send that person to another country.'"

Advertisement

The pace of deportation orders picked up in October after a ruling from the Justice Department's Board of Immigration Appeals, which sets legal precedent inside the byzantine immigration court system.

The ruling from the three judges — two appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and the third a holdover from the first Trump administration — cleared the way for migrants seeking asylum to be removed to any third country where the U.S. State Department determines they won't face persecution or torture.

After the ruling, the government aggressively expanded the practice of ending asylum claims.

More than 13,000 migrants have been ordered deported to so-called "safe third countries" after their asylum cases were canceled, according to data from San Francisco-based Mobile Pathways. More than half the orders were for Honduras, Ecuador or Uganda, with the rest scattered among nearly three dozen other countries.

Deported migrants are free, at least theoretically, to pursue asylum and stay in those third countries, even if some have barely functioning asylum systems.

Deportations have been far more complicated than the government expected

Immigration authorities have released little information about the third-country agreements, known as Asylum Cooperative Agreements, or the deportees, and it's unclear exactly how many have been deported to third countries as part of asylum removals.

According to Third Country Deportation Watch, a tracker run by the rights groups Refugees International and Human Rights First, fewer than 100 of them are thought to have been deported.

In a statement, DHS called the agreements "lawful bilateral arrangements that allow illegal aliens seeking asylum in the United States to pursue protection in a partner country that has agreed to fairly adjudicate their claims."

"DHS is using every lawful tool available to address the backlog and abuse of the asylum system," said the statement, which was attributed only to a spokesperson. There are roughly 2 million backlogged asylum cases in the immigration system.

But deportations clearly turned out to be far more complicated than the government expected, restricted by a variety of legal challenges, the scope of the international agreements and a limited number of airplanes.

Mobile Pathways data, for example, shows that thousands of people have been ordered deported to Honduras — despite a diplomatic agreement that allows the country to take a total of just 10 such deportees per month for 24 months. Dozens of people ordered to Honduras in recent months did not speak Spanish as their primary language, but were native speakers of English, Uzbek and French, among other languages.

And while hundreds of asylum-seeking migrants have been ordered sent to Uganda, a top Ugandan official said none have arrived. U.S. authorities may be "doing a cost analysis" and trying to avoid dispatching flights with only a few people on board, Okello Oryem, the Ugandan minister of state for foreign affairs, told The Associated Press.

"You can't be doing one, two people" at a time," Oryem said. "Planeloads — that is the most effective way."

Many immigration lawyers suspect that the March email ordering a halt in new asylum pretermissions could indicate a shift toward other forms of third-country deportations.

"Right now they haven't been able to remove that many people," said the ACLU's Mehta. "I do think that will change."

"They're in a hiring spree right now. They will have more planes. If they get more agreements, they'll be able to send more people to more countries."

Associated Press reporters Garance Burke in San Francisco, Joshua Goodman in Miami, Rodney Muhumuza in Kampala, Uganda, Marlon González in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and Molly A. Wallace in Chicago contributed to this report.

byAdministrator

in

April 02, 2026

Immigrants seeking asylum are ordered to countries they've never been to, but end up stuck in limbo

The Afghan man had fled the Taliban for refuge in upstate New York when U.S. immigration authorities ordered him deported...

Read More

Ryan Seacrest Re-Lists His Stunning Napa Valley Home for $20 Million — See Inside!

Ryan Seacrest has re-listed his Napa Valley estate for sale with a price tag of nearly $20 million

NEED TO KNOW

• The property includes a 10,750-square-foot main house, a pool house, a guest cottage, and an infinity-edge pool

• Seacrest highlights the enclosed porch with valley views as his favorite spot, describing it as peaceful and unforgettable

Ryan Seacresthas put his Northern California home back on the market.

TheWheel of Fortunehost, 51, has re-listed his Napa Valley estate for $19.8 million after previously taking it off the market in November. The St. Helena, Calif., abode features five bedrooms, six full bathrooms and is spread out across 10,750 square feet.

Along with the main residence, the sprawling property includes a pool house, guest cottage and stunning valley and mountain views.

Cyd Greer of Coldwell Banker Brokers of the Valley holds thelisting.

In a press release from Coldwell Banker, Seacrest says his favorite place in the property is the enclosed porch located just off the living room.

"It's such a peaceful spot, and the views out over the valley floor are unforgettable," he says. "You can even see the hot air balloons drifting by in the distance. It's the kind of place where you naturally want to slow down and take it all in."

Advertisement

The massive estate sits on 40 acres of land and boasts serene vineyard views. It also features multiple terraces, a bocce court and a 220-tree Italian olive grove.

Additional impressive amenities at the property include seven fireplaces, an infinity-edge pool and spa and a spacious central courtyard.

The home, built in 2004, recently underwent renovations in 2024 courtesy ofNobili Marques Arquitecturaand Clint Nicholas Design.

Never miss a story — sign up forPEOPLE's free daily newsletterto stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

According toproperty records, Seacrest's abode has been taken on and off the market since 2018. Before this listing, it was put on the market for $22 million in April 2025 and removed later that year in November.

Read the original article onPeople

byAdministrator

in

April 02, 2026

Ryan Seacrest Re-Lists His Stunning Napa Valley Home for $20 Million — See Inside!

Ryan Seacrest has re-listed his Napa Valley estate for sale with a price tag of nearly $20 million NEED TO KNOW...

Read More

‘Survivor’ Fans Are Not Happy With Donald Trump

Survivor fanswere upset overDonald Trump's presidential address interrupting the 2-hour-long episode of Season 50 on CBS. The network released a statement, confirming that the show will start at its usual time but will be paused for 20 minutes for the president'sspeech. It resumed from where it left off and went on for an extended 20 minutes, past its end time.

Survivor fans are angry at Donald Trump for his speech timing

Fans didn't like that Trump's presidential address popped up between the exciting episode of Survivor Season 50, which now features 17 contestants out of 24 competing for the prize. Episode 6 premiered on 8 p.m. ET/PT on CBS but was halted midway because of the president's speech.

In an earlier statement, CBS confirmed details about the broadcast, saying, "CBS News will air a special report for President Donald J. Trump's live primetime address to the nation from the White House, Wednesday, April 1, at 9 p.m., ET. CBS News' Tony Dokoupil will anchor the coverage." They reassured fans that the show will resume shortly after the speech and will air entirely, with the broadcast extended beyond its scheduled end time as needed.

Despite the reassurance, fans were still upset over the interruption in between their favorite show, taking to social media to share their thoughts. A userwrote, "Why does he always do this during Survivor."

Advertisement

Another oneadded, "Get Trump off my screen im tryna watch survivor booooo … boooo." A third fanwrote, "I don't want Trump harshing my Survivor vibes." Other reactions also included, "As if he would finish a speech in 20 minutes hah."

Following the president's speech, the episode was announced to resume at 9.20 p.m. and go on until 10.20 p.m. before broadcasting America's Culinary Cut. The timings were tweaked not just for Survivor on CBS but also for other shows like Chicago Fire on NBC and The Masked Singer on Fox.

Originally reported by Shazmeen Navrange onMandatory.

The post'Survivor' Fans Are Not Happy With Donald Trumpappeared first onReality Tea.

byAdministrator

in

April 02, 2026

‘Survivor’ Fans Are Not Happy With Donald Trump

Survivor fanswere upset overDonald Trump's presidential address interrupting the 2-hour-long episode of Season 50 on CBS. The network r...

Read More

Is Trump citizenship order doomed? 6 takeaways from birthright debate

WASHINGTON −President Donald Trump'seffort to redefine who is an American did not get the quick rejection from theSupreme Courtthat manyexpected going into the April 1 oral arguments, but key conservative justices seemed skeptical of the administration's arguments for its legality.

Every other court that has reviewed Trump's executive order severely restricting birthright citizenship ruled against it.

But the conservative justices, who have a 6-3 majority, also had probing questions for the other side, particularly about how to understand the court'slandmark 1898 rulingupholding the citizenship of a San Francisco-born man whose Chinese parents were barred from becoming citizens under the laws of the time.

Protests outside Supreme Court as birthright fight reaches justices

Still, the court can rule against Trump without agreeing what that ruling meant. That would be a major blow to the president, who attended part of the arguments in ahistoric first for a sitting president.

Here are six takeaways from the arguments:

Justices have more than one way to rule against Trump

The 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Trump argues that doesn't apply to the children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily.

While the justices spent much time debating the original meaning of that clause and how to interpret the court's 1898 landmark ruling about it, there's another potential way for the court to decide the case.

A citizenship law passed in 1952 uses similar language that was well understood at the time to be different than Trump's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, meaning the court could reject Trump's order without settling every question about the amendment's intent or the 19th Century ruling.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, noted that the court's usual practice is to resolve issues on a statutory – not constitutional – basis when possible.

But Cecillia Wang, the ACLU attorney representing the challengers, said it's important for the court to back its landmark 1898 ruling about birthright citizenship.

"I just think it would be prudent for the court to go ahead and reaffirm that," Wang said, "but, of course, we'd be happy to take a win on any ground."

For his part, Solicitor General John Sauer argued that if the lawmakers who wrote the 1952 law misunderstood the 14th Amendment, theSupreme Courtcan correct that at the same time by upholding Trump's order.

But if the court is going to rule against Trump, Sauer added, the administration would prefer to lose based on the 1952 law and not on the Constitution. If that happens, Congress could still revoke birthright citizenship by changing the law, although that's extremely unlikely without large Republican majorities in both chambers. That would surely draw another legal challenge, likely sending the constitutional question back to the high court.

What does 'domiciled' mean?

A fierce point of contention is whether parents have to be "domiciled" in the United States, meaning that they are lawfully in the country and intend to remain, for their children to be considered citizens. The word "domiciled" appeared numerous times in the landmark 1898 decision upholding birthright citizenship but lawyers challenging Trump's order contend it isn't required for citizenship.

Sauer argued that domiciled means people who are lawfully in the country and have an intent to remain permanently. His position ruled out the children of undocumented immigrants or people visiting the country temporarily who wouldn't automatically be granted citizenship.

But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, suggested that definition of birthright citizenship could be difficult to apply.

"You're not going to know at the time of birth, for some people, whether they have the intent to stay or not," Barrett said.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted that word "domiciled" appeared 20 times in the court's 1898 decision that confirmed birthright citizenship for nearly everyone born in the country.

"Isn't it at least something to be concerned about, to say since it was discussed 20 different times, and it has that significant role in the opinion, that you can just dismiss it as irrelevant?" Roberts asked Wang, the ACLU attorney.

Wang said birthright citizenship came from English common law that didn't require parents to be domiciled.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, suggested the purpose of the word "domiciled" in the 1898 decision is uncertain.

"It seems to me it's a mess," he said. "Maybe you can persuade me otherwise."

Birth tourism: Justices say Trump's policy concerns are irrelevant

Trump has hammered away at "birth tourism" – the practice of pregnant women coming to the United States to give birth so their babies will be citizens – as a main justification for curtailing birthright citizenship.

"It has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States," Sauer told the court.

But the extent of birth tourism – and its threat to national security – is hotly contested. Estimates range from a "marginal" 2,000 babies a year to disputed allegations of100,000 per year during a 15-year span.

Pressed on the statistics by Roberts, Sauer acknowledged it's unclear how common the practice is.

Advertisement

"No one knows for sure," Sauer responded.

More:USA Happy Baby, birth tourism and a blockbuster Supreme Court case

Regardless of its impact, Roberts made the point that policy considerations "have no impact on the legal analysis before us."

Kavanaugh, another conservative justice whose vote is often key to decisions, made the same point about the administration's complaint that most countries do not have birthright citizenship.

"You've mentioned several times the practices of other countries, and that obviously, as a policy matter, supports what you're arguing here," Kavanaugh told Sauer. "But obviously we try to interpret American law with American precedent, based on American history."

Some conservatives press Trump administration's argument

Some of the court's conservative justices appeared concerned with the breadth of the Trump administration's argument, or with the practicalities of how it may be applied.

Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said examples the Trump administration used to argue that children born in the United States to unauthorized immigrants aren't automatically citizensstruck him "as very quirky."

The administration pointed to children of ambassadors and children of enemies invading the country, suggesting that because those children weren't historically understood to be entitled to citizenship, children of unauthorized immigrants aren't, either.

"I'm not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples," Roberts said.

Sauer said there is historical evidence to support understanding birthright citizenship as going to people who don't owe allegiance to any other country.

Barrett suggested that the Trump administration's definition of birthright citizenship – whether the parent of a child born in the United States is "domiciled" in the country, meaning has a permanent intent to stay here –is tricky to apply.

Sauer said, as a practical matter, the president's executive order looks at the legal immigration status of a child's parents, so it doesn't require courts to evaluate a parent's intent.

Liberals skeptical of Trump stance on birthright citizenship

It was already clear ahead of the arguments that the court's three liberal justices were highly skeptical of the Trump administration's stance on birthright citizenship.

Ina June dissenting opinionin a case dealing with the power of lower court judges to halt Trump's citizenship order nationwide, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the order is "patently unconstitutional under settled law." Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan joined that opinion.

None of the three Democratic-appointed justices has changed her mind, judging by the April 1 arguments.

Kagan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said "everybody has believed" the rationale backing birthright citizenship"for a long, long time."

Jackson suggested that a win for the Trump administration could fundamentally destabilize citizenship, because Congress could continually upend birthright citizenship simply by redefining what it means to be "domiciled" in the United States. (The Trump administration says a parent's place of "domicile" is key to whether a child has birthright citizenship.)

Sotomayor argued that, if the Trump administration wins, it could startstripping people of the citizenship they already havethrough a new executive order, even if the order at issue only applied to future children born in the United States.

"The government could move to unnaturalize people who were born here of illegal residents," she said.

Sauer argued that there have long been disputes about who has birthright citizenship, and the Trump administration isn't asking to undo birthright citizenship going back in time.

In unprecedented move, Trump attends Supreme Court argument

Trump demonstrated the importance of the case to him by taking the unprecedented step for a sitting president of attending the April 1 argument in person.

Trump's motorcade arrived at the court about 9:40 a.m., after passing school groups touring the National Mall on his way from the White House to the court across the street from the Capitol. He entered through a back entrance.

Trump's presence wasn't acknowledged by the justices or lawyers, but a few quiet gasps echoed through the room when he entered. He sat in the front row of public seats behind the counsel tables.

Trump left the argument after Sauer's main presentation ended, after a little more than an hour.

"We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow "Birthright" Citizenship!"Trump said on social mediaafter the argument ended.

According to the Pew Research Center, there are32 other countries that offer birthright citizenshipwith essentially the same terms as the United States, including Canada, Mexico and Brazil.

Contributing: Karissa Waddick

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:6 takeaways as Trump's citizenship order takes heat at Supreme Court

byAdministrator

in

April 02, 2026

Is Trump citizenship order doomed? 6 takeaways from birthright debate

WASHINGTON −President Donald Trump'seffort to redefine who is an American did not get the quick rejection from theSup...

Read More