An old legal document written by Marco Rubio is now under the spotlight — and it’s a direct hit on one of Donald Trump’s biggest immigration policies.
Back in 2016, Rubio was running for president. To defend himself in a lawsuit challenging his citizenship, he submitted a legal brief that strongly supported birthright citizenship — the very thing Trump has been trying to eliminate through executive action.
“There’s no reason why the argument he put to work in 2016 couldn’t be put to work today against the Trump executive order,” said Peter J. Spiro, a constitutional law expert at Temple University. He called Rubio’s argument a “powerful, succinct statement” defending the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to almost all children born on U.S. soil, no matter their parents’ immigration status.
The case Rubio responded to came from David Librace, an independent candidate who claimed Rubio wasn’t a “natural born citizen” because his Cuban parents weren’t U.S. citizens when he was born. Rubio fired back hard in his legal filing.
According to the New York Times, Rubio didn’t just defend his own case — he laid out a full-throated defense of birthright citizenship for nearly all children born in the U.S., even if their parents weren’t citizens. “Persons born in the United States to foreign parents (who were not diplomats or hostile, occupying enemies) were citizens of the United States by virtue of their birth,” he wrote.
That statement flatly contradicts Trump’s position. Trump claims that kids born to undocumented immigrants — or even those here on temporary visas — shouldn’t automatically get citizenship because they’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.
Legal experts say that doesn’t hold water.
“Particularly weak is the administration’s attempt to distinguish among legally present noncitizens,” Spiro said. He pointed out that trying to block citizenship for the children of students and temporary workers proves the policy isn’t just about undocumented immigrants — it’s broader, and legally shaky.
Rubio’s 2016 filing wasn’t some vague, offhand opinion. It was a detailed, deliberate defense of the exact constitutional principle Trump wants to tear down — and it came from someone now serving as Trump’s own Secretary of State.
But the State Department isn’t interested in talking about that now. When asked about the old brief, a spokesman dodged the issue and slammed the Times for even bringing it up.
“It’s absurd the NYT is even wasting time digging around for decade-old made-up stories,” said spokesman Tommy Pigott. “[The secretary of state is] 100 percent aligned with President Trump’s agenda.”
