Should Birthright Citizenship Change or Remain as It Is?

 Birthright citizenship has long been a topic discussed on this blog. It is a topic that will soon be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court because President Donald Trump, on the first day of his second term, signed an Executive Order ending the long-established interpretation of birthright citizenship. Lawsuits were immediately filed. They were consolidated, and the Supreme Court will hear the arguments tomorrow.

In her article filed at the Deseret News, Lauren Irwin, national politics reporter, discussed what Americans should know before the Supreme Court hears the arguments. 

Trump was seeking to reinterpret the constitutional language giving citizenship to almost every child who is born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ legal status. The president doesn’t want citizenship granted to children born to parents who are in the United States either illegally or temporarily.

The order sparked concern among expecting mothers, immigration advocates and constitutionalists. It was also unclear what the order could mean for those who had already been granted citizenship under the long-standing constitutional right.

The case before the Supreme Court was partially presented to the justices during last year’s term, but the high court ultimately ruled on the matter of nationwide injunctions, declining to take up the birthright issue itself. This week, the justices will hear the Trump administration’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that blocked his executive order….

Trump administration argument

Trump’s order challenged the interpretation of the 14^th Amendment, saying that babies born to parents unlawfully in the U.S. or in the country on a temporary visa cannot be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country, or granted automatic citizenship.

The administration is likely going to lean on its argument that in the language of the amendment, it states that all people born in the U.S. are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The 14^th Amendment reads, in part: “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.”

The administration argues that the language was not meant to cover everyone born on U.S. soil and should apply only to those who pledge allegiance to the country, not those who want to come to the U.S. to give birth to their children and have a through-line to citizenship that way.

[This intent could be shown by the use of commas setting off “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The use of commas has determined previous court decisions.]

The 14^th Amendment was adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War.

In 1857, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution did not extend citizenship to enslaved Black people in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. In 1868, the 14^th Amendment was added to the Constitution, guaranteeing citizenship, due process and equal protection to those born in or naturalized in the country. In 1898, the Supreme Court confirmed and clarified the amendment in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case.

Wong Kim Ark was a child born in San Francisco to parents who were Chinese citizens at the time, before later becoming U.S. citizens. The boy was denied reentry to the U.S. after a trip abroad and the legal battle over his citizenship reached the Supreme Court. This was the first case on the status of children born to immigrants and created a precedent in the court’s interpretation of the 14^th Amendment going forward.

But the administration argues that Trump’s order “restores the original meaning” of the Citizenship Clause, and that the text was intended to provide citizenship to enslaved peoples and permanent residents.

The administration argues that the respondents in the current case who say that Wong Kim Ark’s case proves citizenship should be extended to all immigrant children miss that in 1898, at the time of the ruling, the boy’s parents were of “lawful ‘permanent domicil and residence’ here.” However, the ACLU and respondents say that the court’s decision in the case includes “all immigrants,” proving that “even temporary visitors” should be subject to the jurisdiction and the rights provided by the amendment.

Opposing Trump’s order

Several lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of Trump’s order. The lawsuits were filed by expectant mothers, immigrant rights groups and several states. They were consolidated into one case for the Supreme Court to review.

The groups challenging Trump’s order, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, point to the historical precedent that courts, Congress and previous presidents have all understood and accepted regarding the language of the amendment. The ACLU says that birthright citizenship is “central to who we are as a country” and that “no president has the power to rewrite the Constitution.”

The respondents in their brief to the court, like the administration, are leaning heavily on the text of the amendment. They argue that “all persons born here” should apply to “all” and “not just some.” They noted that the Framers included the text to be “All persons born here” so it’s broadly interpreted to include many, not just a few.

[Framers is a term used to designate the people who wrote the Constitution in the late 1700s. The 14^th Amendment was written after the Civil War that ended in 1864.]

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues in the administration’s brief that birthright citizenship has been taken advantage of by women who come to the country to give birth solely so their children receive U.S. citizenship.

The respondents pushed back on this argument, saying that even if the pathway to citizenship was being abused through “birth tourism,” it was “marginal” and there were other ways to deal with the issue if it is a problem….

[These are some of the same people who claimed that the border was closed and that no election fraud took place.]

Respondents want to continue with the practice as it has been done, while the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to take a fresh look at the problem and not simply rely on text that is decades old.

The 14^th Amendment was meant to give citizenship to the babies of slaves. In the 1860s, people were not traveling like they are today. The amendment was not meant for rich people who can afford to live in a foreign land long enough to have a baby or for people desperate to have a child who is a citizen of the United States.

Although many experts believe that Trump’s executive order was unlawful, there are others who believe otherwise.

Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, said “birth tourism” is an example of “the absurdity” that birthright citizenship has brought to the U.S.

“The 14^th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreigners,” he said online. “Its current application is a gross exploitation that must end if American citizenship is to mean anything at all.”

A decision on the case is expected by the end of the current term, which ends in June.

 

 

 

 

 

Who Is JD Vance?

My VIP for this week is JD Vance, Republican Vice President of the United States. He recently won a straw poll taken at CPAC in Grapevine, Texas, in which he polled “53% of the more than 1,600 attendees who participated in the survey. However, all is not good for Vance because Secretary of State received 35% of the CPAC votes to succeed President Donald Trump. Vance received 61% of the vote in last year’s CPAC straw poll.

According to Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell in her article at The Daily Signal, CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp has some ideas about who will succeed Trump. 

For anyone who wants to succeed President Trump, they’re going to have to work for it, and they’re going to have to earn it…. That’s how President Trump was elected as an outsider…. He showed up on every stage, and he made everyone else look implausible.

Vance and Rubio are the only two potential candidates to receive more than 2% of the vote. Other potential contenders in the straw vote were Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), War Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Donald Trump Jr.

Vance has called Rubio his “closest friend in the administration,” and Rubio has said that he would support Vance for president. “If JD Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee, and I’ll be one of the first people to support him.”

 

Should Illegal Aliens Be Held Without Bond Pending Removal Proceedings?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the rights of illegal aliens in the U.S. court system. A recent court decision may clear up many questions. In their article published at The Daily Signal, Cully Stimson and John Osorio shed more light on the case. 

Earlier this week, a federal appeals court held that the Department of Homeland Security could detain an illegal alien without bond pending his removal proceedings after he was arrested in Minneapolis in 2025. In journeyman fashion, the 8^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the applicable immigration laws as written and applied common sense to reach its decision.

That law, 8 U.S.C. § 1225, a nearly three-decade-old statute, requires detention without bond for “an alien who is an applicant for admission if … an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” This case could be a gamechanger in the administration’s efforts to hold illegal aliens pending their removal hearings.

Joaquin Herrera Avila is a Mexican national. He was arrested last August in Minneapolis and admitted he was in the country illegally. Avila had illegally entered the U.S. twice; once in 2006 and again in 2016. When he was caught in 2025, Avila was held without bond, and DHS initiated removal proceedings for lacking valid entry documentation.

Avila requested a bond redetermination before the immigration judge, who denied his request. Avila’s attorney then filed a habeas petition in federal district court seeking his immediate release or a bond hearing. Avila argued that since he was not “seeking admission” while in the U.S., the statute simply didn’t apply to him.

Avila’s argument goes like this: As long as an illegal alien in the U.S. just sits back and does nothing to adjust his status in the country, such as seek asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not apply to him.

The district court ruled in favor of Avila, claiming the statute did not apply because he had lived in the country for years without “seeking admission” to the U.S. But the text of the statute itself, as the 8^th Circuit noted in its de novo review of the law, is unambiguous. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it.

Section 1225(a)(1) is clear as a bell: “An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States … shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.”

So, whether you actively apply for admission while you’re illegally in the country, or pull an Avila and do nothing, you’re still considered an “applicant for admission.” No further legal reasoning is required beyond the text of the statute itself….

The dissent’s first sentence raised our eyebrows: “Except for a single DUI, for nearly 20 years, Joaquin Herrera Avila had bene living a law-abiding life in the United States.”

Law abiding? Apparently the two times Avila entered the country illegally did not count. No doubt, that’s why the majority cited 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) at the beginning of their opinion.

That statute makes it illegal to “enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers” and carries a term of imprisonment of up to six months for the first offense and up to two years for subsequent offenses….

This issue has been litigated across the country in federal courts. As more circuit courts split on this issue, it’s only a matter of time before this issue finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Are Your Sacred Times and Sacred Spaces?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Exodus 1-6 in a lesson titled “I Have Remembered My Covenant.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

The invitation to live in Egypt saved Jacob’s family. But after hundreds of years, their descendants were enslaved and terrorized by a new pharaoh who “knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). It would have been natural for the Israelites to wonder why God allowed this to happen to them, His covenant people. Did He remember the covenant He had made with them? Were they still His people? Could He see how much they were suffering?

There may be times when you’ve felt like asking similar questions. You might wonder, “Does God know what I’m going through? Can He hear my pleas for help?” Israel’s deliverance from Egypt answers such questions clearly: God does not forget His people. He remembers His covenants with us and will fulfill them in His own time and way. “I will redeem you with a stretched out arm,” He declares. “I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under [your] burdens” (Exodus 6:6-7).

The scripture block contains numerous principles, including (1) God can work through me to fulfill His purposes (Exodus 1-2); (2) Jesus Christ is my Deliverer (Exodus 1-3); (3) I can show reverence for holy things and places (Exodus 3:1-6); (4) God gives power to people He calls to do His work (Exodus 3-4); (5) The Lord’s purposes will be fulfilled in His own time (Exodus 5-6). All of the principles are worthy of discussion, but I feel prompted to discuss principle #3 about showing reverence for holy things and places. The scripture verses that are applicable for this principle are as follow: Exodus 3:1-6.

1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Have you ever experienced an awe-inspiring experience? How did you react when feeling awe and wonder? Could you describe the emotions you felt?

Moses first wondered why a bush would burn without being consumed, so he climbed the mountain to look closer. Once he arrived, God spoke to him out of the burning bush and told him that the ground where he stood was holy ground. After the Lord introduced himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses responded by hiding his face because he was afraid to look upon God. What connections do you see between his actions and reverence for sacred things?

While reading these verses, think about the holy things and holy places in your life. Why are they sacred to you? How do you treat them differently from things that are common?

In his October 2017 General Conference talk titled “Exceeding Great and Precious Promises” (Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2017, 91-93), Elder David A. Bednar taught the following information about sacred things and sacred places in the section of his talk “Remembering the Promises.” 

President Lorenzo Snow warned, “We are too apt to forget the great object of life, the motive of our Heavenly Father in sending us here to put on mortality, as well as the holy calling with which we have been called; and hence, instead of rising above the little transitory things … , we too often allow ourselves to come down to the level of the world without availing ourselves of the divine help which God has instituted, which alone can enable us to overcome [those transitory things].”

The Sabbath day and the holy temple are two specific sources of divine help instituted by God to assist us in rising above the level and corruption of the world. We initially may think that the overarching purposes of keeping the Sabbath day holy and attending the temple are related but distinctive. I believe, however, that those two purposes are precisely the same and work together to strengthen us spiritually as individuals and in our homes.

The Sabbath

After God created all things, He rested on the seventh day and commanded that one day each week be a time of rest to help people remember Him. The Sabbath is God’s time, a sacred time specifically set apart for worshipping Him and for receiving and remembering His great and precious promises.

The Lord has directed in this dispensation:

“That thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

“For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High.”

Thus, on the Sabbath we worship the Father in the name of the Son by participating in ordinances and learning about, receiving, remembering, and renewing covenants. On His holy day, our thoughts, actions, and demeanor are signs we give to God and an indicator of our love for Him.

An additional purpose of the Sabbath is to elevate our vision from the things of the world to the blessings of eternity. Removed during this sacred time from many of the regular routines of our busy lives, we can “look to God and live” by receiving and remembering the great and precious promises whereby we become partakers of the divine nature.

The Holy Temple

The Lord always has commanded His people to build temples, holy places in which worthy Saints perform sacred gospel ceremonies and ordinances for themselves and for the dead. Temples are the most holy of all places of worship. A temple literally is the house of the Lord, a sacred space specifically set apart for worshipping God and for receiving and remembering His great and precious promises.

The Lord has directed in this dispensation, “Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing; and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God.” The principal focus of temple worship is participating in ordinances and learning about, receiving, and remembering covenants. We think, act, and dress differently in the temple than in other spaces that we may frequent.

A principal purpose of the temple is to elevate our vision from the things of the world to the blessings of eternity. Removed for a short time from the worldly settings with which we are familiar, we can “look to God and live” by receiving and remembering the great and precious promises whereby we become partakers of the divine nature.

Please note that the Sabbath day and the temple, respectively, are a sacred time and a sacred space specifically set apart for worshipping God and for receiving and remembering His exceeding great and precious promises to His children. As instituted by God, the principal purposes of these two divine sources of help are exactly the same: to powerfully and repeatedly focus our attention upon our Heavenly Father, His Only Begotten Son, the Holy Ghost, and the promises associated with the ordinances and covenants of the Savior’s restored gospel.

Our Homes

Importantly, a home should be the ultimate combination of time and space wherein individuals and families remember most effectively God’s great and precious promises. Leaving our homes to spend time in Sunday meetings and to enter the sacred space of a temple is vital but insufficient. Only as we bring the spirit and strength derived from those holy activities back with us into our homes can we sustain our focus upon the great purposes of mortal life and overcome the corruption that is in the world. Our Sabbath and temple experiences should be spiritual catalysts that imbue individuals and families and our homes with continual reminders of key lessons learned, with the presence and power of the Holy Ghost, with ongoing and deepening conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ, and with “a perfect brightness of hope” in God’s eternal promises.

The Sabbath and the temple can help us to establish in our homes “a more excellent way” as we “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” What we do in our homes with His sacred time and with what we learn in His sacred space is pivotal to becoming partakers of the divine nature.

 

Why Do Men Need Work and Family to Prosper?

Families are stronger when men and women work to help the family prosper, and strong families strengthen communities, states, and nations. There is trouble in our society, and it is showing up in young men.

In an article published at The Deseret News, Brad Wilcox and Maria Baer discuss the importance of work. They wrote that cultural elites have downplayed the role of breadwinners in our society, saying that the idea hurts men, women, children, marriages, relationships, and mental health. However, the elites do not tell the whole story. 

But there is data that tells a different story. A sobering new report on young men in America makes it plain: Men without work, purpose or a family to provide for tend to flounder. And when men flounder, they don’t suffer alone. The women in their lives suffer. Their communities suffer. The wreckage is shared.

In other words, being a breadwinner is not the problem. But not having that privilege and responsibility might be.

The nation has already witnessed the devastating toll that deindustrialization has taken on men, their families and communities across middle America, in communities like Lordstown, Ohio, once a major hub of car manufacturing.

The Lordstown Assembly plant manufactured cars for General Motors for more than 50 years, employing up to 10,000 workers at its peak in the 1990s. Now the plant has become a sad metaphor: GM left Lordstown in 2019, laying off thousands. For years, the building sat empty and it’s now slated to become an AI data center, employing just a few hundred people.

According to researchers at the Economic Innovation Group, the disappearance of working-class jobs in communities like Lordstown in northeastern Ohio is one big reason that rates of violent crime, drug use, broken families, and childhood poverty in the region are higher than the national average. It’s a cautionary tale: When men aren’t working, society suffers.

The new report from the Institute for Family Studies, “America’s Demoralized Men,” shows that this problem of male unemployment and underemployment has spread beyond the deindustrialized heartland. In 1980, only 25% of young men (ages 18-29, not in school) were not working full time. Today, that number has risen to 33%.

The problem is even bigger than it seems.

That’s because young men still view work as a key indicator of their successful entrance into adulthood, and so it follows that their inability to find or hold down a full-time job would cause embarrassment or despair.

That’s what we found. A stunning 42% of respondents either somewhat or strongly agree that they are “failures.” This is especially true for young men who aren’t working at all.

Why are young men demoralized?

[Authors tell of a 25-year-old man who applied for “more than 900 jobs” but was still “unemployed and living at home” with not “enough money to date.” He wants to “be an adult” but feels “stunted.” He is trying but feels like his “best isn’t good enough.”]

The tenor of [the man’s] words tells us that out-of-work men don’t just suffer financially, but emotionally and socially. We already know that today’s men are between two and three times as likely as women to suffer “deaths of despair” – death by alcohol, drug use or suicide, and such deaths are more common among men who are unemployed or underemployed. And a lack of full-time work hinders yet other traditional markers of adulthood: dating and marriage.

This matters because most young men still want to get married. But fully 59% of our survey’s 18- to 29-year-old respondents are not married and not dating anyone seriously. Indeed, in a world where dating has become much more daunting and difficult, especially for men who are not working at decent-paying jobs, it’s getting harder for men to find their way to the altar.

Why being a breadwinner matters

All this matters because men are more likely to flourish when they see themselves as providers. Men do better when they feel needed – and being a reliable breadwinner makes them feel needed….

And, as Wilcox found when writing his book “Get Married,” it’s not just men who flourish when they see themselves as providers. The data tells us that wives are happier when they view their husbands as good providers.

Having a full-time job is also a traditional marker of being an adult – and many of today’s young men don’t consider themselves adults even after they’ve turned 21.

As the report says, “the feeling of having reached full adulthood is … highly correlated with the old benchmarks: being married and a parent, working full time, and completing college or trade school. Hence, even among men ages 24-29, less than half (41%) report ‘definitely’ feeling like adults.”

Moreover, a majority of young men say that it is extremely or very important to be financially independent from their parents (81%) and to be able to provide for others (72%). Breadwinning matters – and makes a difference in how young men feel about themselves.

Good public policy can help

That’s why it’s crucial that public policy efforts aimed at easing the struggles of today’s young men – and protecting communities from the family and social pathologies that follow idle men – don’t unintentionally rob them of their ability to provide.

Too often, government assistance programs do just that. They disincentivize the achievements of work (and marriage) by pushing people off a “benefits cliff” when they achieve them.

Ohio Sen. Jon Husted recently introduced a bill meant to tackle that problem. The Upward Mobility Act would create a pilot program in five states that will pool welfare resources into one financial stream and then slowly taper benefits as recipients get married and find either higher-paying jobs or more hours of work….

Anthropologist Margaret Mead once memorably quipped that every healthy nation must “define the male role satisfactorily enough” – it must have a place and a purpose for its men. Those nations which don’t, she warned, are destined for trouble, because idle men make unstable communities.

… America needs working men, and America’s men need and want to work. The government should do everything it can to foster a healthy marketplace for them – even when that means getting out of the way.

 

  

Why Is Sharia Law Not Acceptable in America?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the need to keep the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of America. In December 2025, Chip Roy (R-TX-21) and Keith Self (R-TX-03) acted to protect constitutional law in the United States by launching the Sharia-Free America Caucus in the House of Representatives. They did so to “counter the alarming rise of Sharia law in the United States.”

According to the press release on December 18, 2025, “Sharia is a dominating force that is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution. The formation of the Caucus has earned the support of U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville – the leading voice in the Senate against Sharia.” The following quotes are from the press release. 

Rep. Chip Roy

America is facing a threat that directly attacks our Constitution and our Western values: the spread of Sharia law. From Texas to every state in this constitutional republic, instances of Sharia adherents masquerading as ‘refugees’ – and in many cases, sleeper cells connected to terrorist organizations – are threatening the American way of life. Those who succumb to this political ideology seek to replace our legal system and Constitution. Under Sharia law, there is no freedom of speech, religion, or women’s rights. Europe should be a wake-up call to America, showing what the spread of Sharia law looks like. America’s immigration system must brace to take on this battle, not only to preserve our constitutional republic but to take charge in the spiritual warfare and defend our Judeo-Christian values….

Rep. Keith Self

The American way of life is under siege by radicals from a culture waging war against our Constitution and Western values. We’ve seen what happens when nations allow this infiltration: countries like France and England are on the verge of losing their identity and sovereignty. The same forces are at play here in America today, and if we don’t stop them, they will conquer our country too….

Sen. Tommy Tuberville

For months, I’ve been warning about the growing threat of Islam in the United States. Islam isn’t a religion, it’s a death cult. Sharia Law teaches that it is righteous to kill all infidels, and especially Christians. Unfortunately, 15 innocent people were murdered by Radical Islamists in Australia this weekend. If we don’t wake up, these types of terrorist attacks will become commonplace. I’m glad that some of my Republican colleagues in the House have a backbone and are joining me in the fight against this anti-American ideology.

This site states, “Twenty-four House Republicans joined the caucus within its first month of existence.” In the next paragraph, the article states that membership grew to forty-three members in the first two months of existence. Self said that he expects the caucus to continue growing. 

The Sharia-Free America Caucus and its growth attracted the attention of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), according to an article by Tyler O’Neil at The Daily Signal.

CAIR “has designated the Sharia Free America Caucus” as an ‘anti-Muslim hate group.’

O’Neil quotes a Muslim reformer as saying: 

“Labeling a congressional caucus that represents millions of Americans a ‘hate group’ simply for addressing the threat of Sharia supremacism to Muslims and non-Muslims is not civil rights advocacy,” Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday.

“It is the American equivalent of a blasphemy law – a tool to silence, stigmatize, and shut down legitimate constitutional debate.”

While Jasser noted that some of the caucus members’ statements could have benefited from more clarity, he claimed that “CAIR isn’t interested in nuance. They want total dominance of the conversation – where any public challenge to theocratic Islamism is branded as hatred and any critic is driven from the public square, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.”

“This is structurally identical to how clerical regimes in Muslim-majority countries use anti-blasphemy laws to crush Muslim dissent against theocrats,” he argued. “CAIR has never stook with reform-minded, freethinking Muslims – the dissidents, the secularists, the liberal reformers, the faithful who reject theocracy from within the Muslim community.”

… CAIR announced the “hate group” designation last month, accusing the caucus of attempting to render the practice of the Islamic faith illegal….

CAIR does not usually designate “hate groups,” but it has repeatedly partnered with the Southern Poverty Law Center in urging community foundations to stop funding organizations the SPLC brands “anti-Muslim hate groups.”

Critics claim the SPLC puts mainstream conservative and Christian groups on a “hate map” alongside Ku Klux Klan chapters, suggesting that a similar hatred drives them….

A Terrorist Organization?

“The fact that CAIR – an organization that multiple states have classified as a terrorist organization – has designated the Sharia Free American Caucus as a ‘hate group’ is absurd,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told The Daily Signal.

“Recent attacks in places like New York and Michigan are a reminder of the very real threat posed by violent ideologies and I’m glad my colleagues are looking at ways to prevent Sharia law and political Islam from taking hold in America,” he added.

When approached for comment, Self responded, “We don’t care about the opinion of a designated terrorist organization.”

Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, designated CAIR as a foreign terrorist organization on Nov. 18, and Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., followed suit in December. CAIR sued, and a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking DeSantis’ executive order.

A Vital Distinction

Jasser, the Muslim reformer, told The Daily Signal that “there is a necessary and important distinction between personal pietistic Islamic practice – which deserves full constitutional protection – and many applications of Sharia that infringe on individual and human rights.”

“This includes not only overt political Sharia imposed through local governance, but Sharia-based practices that strip individuals – women, religious minorities, apostates, dissenters – of their fundamental rights and dignities, whether in the home, the community, or the public square,” he added.

The Caucus’ Distinction

“Sharia is a political and legal system that seeks supremacy over the U.S. Constitution,” Rep. Self told The Daily Signal. “As Dr. Zuhdi Jasser has rightly said, the real threat is political Islam and Sharia supremacism, not the personal faith of peaceful Muslims.”

“Our caucus is not banning ‘Islam,’” Self added. “We are simply insisting that America remains governed by one law – the Constitution – and that we reject any foreign legal system that demands to replace it. CAIR can call that ‘hate’ if they want. Americans call it common sense.”

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, told The Daily Signal that the debate isn’t “about freedom of religion – this is about the threat of political Islam that is antithetical to America’s foundation.” He said that immigrants should “assimilate to our culture, not impose third-world ideals into our society.”

 

Is Arctic Frost Worse Than Watergate?

More documents have been released about Jack Smith’s investigation into President Donald Trump. According to an article by Fred Lucas at The Daily Signal, the newly released documents from the Department of Justice “provide details on former special counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenas for phone records of current administration officials and members of Congress.” 

The documents were made public shortly before a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, titled “Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate.” They reveal how Smith’s probe demanded current FBI Director Kash Patel’s phone records and proposed subpoenas for records of 14 members of Congress.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released the documents along with Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearing on Tuesday.

Cruz compared the data gathering by Smith’s team to the scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974.

“It is a modern Watergate, trading a break-in at one office for a digital sweep into approximately 100,000 private communications, more than a dozen senators, and thousands of individuals’ lives,” Cruz said.

“It is something far broader, an operation that aligned Democrats across all three branches of government: the Biden executive branch, through DOJ and the FBI, wielding investigative power against political opponents; Democrat-appointed judges in the judiciary, through warrants, secrecy orders, and deference, failing to serve as a meaningful check; and members of the legislative branch, who should be the first line of oversight, choosing instead to look the other way,” Cruz continued.

In 2025, the Senate Judiciary Committee released a set of documents that showed Smith’s team collected phone data from nine Republican senators and one Republican House member in the investigation, dubbed “Arctic Frost.”

The new batch of documents shows Smith’s team wanted even more members’ records.

Cruz noted the Smith team sought records of about one-fifth of Senate Republicans. He asked Will Chamberlain, senior counsel for the Article III Project, a watchdog group, how he would compare the Arctic Frost probe to the Watergate scandal.

Chamberlain brought up the surveillance of then-Trump campaign manager Susie Wiles and her lawyer. Wiles is not the White House chief of staff. According to reports, the FBI recorded a phone call between Wiles and her lawyer without her knowledge.

“If anything, it might even be greater. The scope of this, in terms of the sheer number of people and organizations affected, this brazen violation of attorney-client privilege, wiretapping, a phone call between Susie Wiles and her lawyer,” Chamberlain told the Senate panel. “These are egregious offenses, and if Watergate was just about a single break-in, this is effectively compounding that by 200.”

Smith issued two subpoenas to Verizon, requesting about two years of Patel’s phone records spanning January 2021 through February 2023, the documents show.

The subpoenas sought Patel’s residential and email addresses and phone connection records, including records of text messages sent and received. Such information would not include the content of conversations by phone or text.

Federal judges approved nondisclosure agreements for the requests, asserting there were “reasonable grounds” because disclosure of the subpoenas “will result” in actions such as flight from prosecution and evidence tampering….

An email on Jan. 10, 2023, discussed plans to subpoena toll records for various members of Congress and staff, including Republican Reps. Brian Babin of Texas; Andy Biggs of Arizona, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Jody Hice of Georgia, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Lee Zeldin of New York; as well as Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Cruz.

“The records include a wish list created by Smith’s team naming 14 members of Congress for whom they wanted to seek tolling data. Some of those members are senators on this very committee,” Grassley said.

“But, the list notes that Smith’s team already knew these members had communications, to include text messages for some members, with individuals associated with President Trump.”

Smith defended his actions while testifying before the House Judiciary Committee in January: “For the conspiracy that we were investigating, it was relevant to get full records to understand the scope of that conspiracy,” Smith told the House panel. He added, “In conducting a criminal investigation, securing non-content toll records, as you described, is a common practice in almost any complex concern.”