Critical judgment falters when, after embracing a political leader because his rhetoric resonates with us, we begin to nod along to every action he takes. The guard drops, scrutiny fades, and principles we would normally defend without hesitation are quietly set aside.

With Donald Trump—as with other global figures—something similar may be happening. I support most of his policies. I understand the frustration over the spread of corrosive ideologies and the strain caused by illegal immigration, particularly when many newcomers—though not all—show little interest in respecting the culture that receives them and, in some cases, seem intent on eroding it. But Western values, the ones we claim to champion, are not negotiable instruments to be traded for political convenience.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision reaffirming birthright citizenship, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurring opinion in particular, has triggered a wave of Republican criticism. It presents a familiar crossroads: the tension between a seemingly pragmatic protective strategy and the moral obligation to uphold the rule of law. The law cannot be reshaped to suit the preferences of whichever politician happens to be in power. It must rest on rigorous analysis and faithful constitutional interpretation.

The text of the Fourteenth Amendment refers solely to the person born on U.S. soil. It makes no mention of parents or their circumstances. It states that anyone “born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction” — that is, under its flag — is a U.S. citizen. This right cannot be stripped away from individuals whose citizenship has been constitutionally protected since 1868—a provision that has shaped the nation’s demographic fabric. It cannot be replaced by interpretations crafted in moments of political fervor to serve narrower interests.

Justice Barrett has remained true to the role for which she was appointed. As she has said repeatedly, her duty is not to defend a political agenda or safeguard her own affinities. It is to stand apart from them, protect civil rights, and shield the legal system from impulsive, inconsistent decision-making. In an era when constitutional fidelity is too often treated as optional, her stance is a reminder that the judiciary’s legitimacy depends on its willingness to resist political tides, not ride them.