Good morning, it's Saturday, August 8. Five weeks after the Supreme Court told President Trump he can't rewrite the 14th Amendment, he signed two new executive orders trying anyway.

Also in today's issue: Trump's defense lawyer confirmed as AG, Farm bill stalls as millions lose food aid, Head Start gutted from the inside.

PS—Was this forwarded to you? Join The Bluebill here. Or forward this to a friend.

If you were born in the United States, you've probably never had to think about whether your citizenship is real. That's because of five words in the 14th Amendment: "All persons born… in the United States." For 158 years, that sentence has meant the same thing. Your birth certificate is your proof. No one can take it away. No one can review your parents' paperwork and decide you don't count. That guarantee — the idea that citizenship comes from being born here, not from who your parents are — is what the Supreme Court upheld on June 30 in a 6–3 ruling called Trump v. Barbara. And it's what President Trump tried to chip away at on Wednesday when he signed two new executive orders.

Here's the thing. These orders aren't trying to end birthright citizenship outright. They're trying to carve exceptions into it — new categories of babies born on American soil who wouldn't get citizenship. The first order targets children born to people the government calls "alien enemies," including members of a Venezuelan gang called Tren de Aragua and foreign terrorist groups. It also covers children of foreign government employees and anyone who paid to give birth in the U.S. — what the administration calls a "commercial transaction." The second order goes after "birth tourism," the practice of traveling to the U.S. specifically to have a baby who becomes a citizen.

Now look — the birth tourism numbers tell a story the White House doesn't want you to hear. In 2024, the CDC counted fewer than 10,000 babies born in the U.S. to mothers who listed a foreign address. Out of 3.6 million total births that year. That's less than three-tenths of one percent. And U.S. law already makes it illegal to get a visa for the main purpose of giving birth here. The legal tools to address this already exist. What's new is an executive framework for the president to decide which American-born babies deserve citizenship and which don't.

Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff, described the orders as expanding the Court's own ruling. That framing matters — and it's wrong. The Court in Trump v. Barbara recognized narrow, long-standing exceptions, like children of accredited foreign diplomats. But the majority was clear: the president cannot redefine the 14th Amendment by executive order. What Miller is doing is taking that narrow exception and stretching it to cover categories the Court never mentioned. Trump went further, calling birthright citizenship "a disgrace" and saying the amendment was written "for the babies of slaves." Historians and the Court itself have rejected that reading. The amendment's authors chose broad language on purpose.

Here's what happens next. The ACLU has already said it will challenge both orders in court. Given that the justices struck down a broader version of this same policy five weeks ago, these orders face steep odds. But the legal fight is only part of the story.

The deeper question is what it means when a president keeps pushing against a constitutional boundary after the Court has said no. The system works when leaders accept rulings they disagree with. What we're watching now is something different — a test of whether a president can keep issuing slightly narrower versions of the same rejected policy until one survives. Whether the courts, the public, and Congress have the endurance to keep saying no every time.

Watch for the first lawsuits early next week. The full legal text of neither order has been released yet, which means we're still waiting on the fine print. And with midterm elections 87 days away, this fight is about to become a campaign question. Pay attention to how candidates answer when asked whether the president can override the Supreme Court with a memo from the Oval Office.

You don't have to read everything — just the right thing. 1440's daily newsletter distills the day's biggest stories from 100+ sources into one quick, 5-minute read. It's the fastest way to stay sharp, sound informed, and actually understand what's happening in the world. Join 4.5 million readers who start their day the smart way.

Join for free today!

Trump's former defense lawyer was confirmed as attorney general in a 50–49 vote at 4:31 a.m. Saturday. Todd Blanche represented Trump in the New York hush money case before becoming acting AG in April. As acting AG, he oversaw the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, grand jury subpoenas for New York Times reporters, the search of a Washington Post reporter's home, and an IRS deal that shielded Trump from up to $100 million in tax liability. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, voted no, citing the "weaponization" of the Justice Department. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana — the deciding vote — choked up on the Senate floor and said he knew he'd be criticized. When the person running the Justice Department is the same person who defended the president in criminal court, the question isn't whether the department is independent — it's whether anyone still pretends it is.

The farm bill died in committee on Wednesday as the Senate Agriculture Committee voted 10–11 along party lines, with Democrats blocking the legislation over Republican plans to shift food stamp costs to states. The two sides were one year apart — Republicans offered a one-year delay before states start sharing SNAP costs, Democrats wanted two — and neither blinked. Two Republican absences, including Senator Mitch McConnell, who has been hospitalized since June, left the GOP without the votes. The Senate then left for a five-week recess with the 2018 farm bill set to expire September 30. Meanwhile, the damage is already here: SNAP enrollment has dropped by more than 4.5 million people — 11% — since the One Big Beautiful Bill took effect last July. Arizona has lost nearly half its recipients, and for the first time, more Arizonans visit food banks each month than receive food stamps.

The administration moved to strip more than 1,400 federal regulations from Head Start, the early-education program serving roughly 700,000 children from low-income families at 1,600 centers nationwide. The proposed rule would remove federal standards for class sizes, teacher qualifications, and curriculum, replacing them with state and local childcare licensing. It cuts the cap on administrative spending from 15% to 5% and adds an English-only instruction mandate. Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 called for eliminating Head Start entirely. This rule doesn't kill the program — it removes everything that made it work, and keeps the name. The public comment period ends October 6.

P.S. Should a president get a third try after the Court says no? Hit Reply — one word is enough.