Ingrassia on Trump Possible VP Picks

by Sharon Rondeau

(Feb. 1, 2024) — In a Substack post Thursday, former Trump White House intern, current law clerk and legal analyst Paul Ingrassia presented his views on several candidates who could be on a relatively short list of vice-presidential choices for Donald J. Trump should he receive the 2024 Republican nomination this summer.

Ingrassia considers himself “Author of President Trump’s favorite Substack” and is clearly a Trump supporter. Last month he was catapulted to the attention of the mainstream media after writing a January 1 column positing that 2024 Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president or vice president. 

The January 1 article, titled “The Constitution Absolutely Prohibits Nikki Haley From Being President Or Vice President,” states, in part:

The question of Presidential eligibility under the Constitution has been a hot button one, especially in recent years with the controversial campaigns of John McCain, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, and most recently, Kamala Harris.  The controversy arises from the text of the Constitution itself.  Article II, Section 1 stipulates that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”  The core issue centers on the meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen.”  The Constitution explicitly lays out three requirements to run for president: (i) be at least 35 years old; (ii) have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years; and (iii) be a natural-born citizen of the United States.

The question of natural born citizenship is crystal clear, though often gets confused with the more controversial debate surrounding birthright citizenship.  From the outset, it should be stressed that the two are entirely different constitutional considerations.  The legal question of natural born citizenship, as an eligibility requirement for president, is well-settled law, whereas the birthright citizenship issue is still up in the air.

There is a reason the Founding Fathers attached the requirement of being a “natural born Citizen” to the President (and with the passage of the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President) only, and no other federal offices. The idea was to elevate the threshold for the highest elected political office of the land – notably, that language is absent in Article I, which stipulates that lawmakers running for the House or Senate need only be a “citizen” to qualify. The early debates surrounding passage of the Constitution add support for the view that the Framers wanted to exclude “the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government,” as John Jay wrote to George Washington in July of 1787…

It makes sense that the Constitution’s architects did not license the presidency to anyone born on U.S. soil.  The specific requirement of natural-born citizenship, which is absent for both members of Congress and the judiciary, was intended to raise the threshold for presidential officeholders in particular.  In Nikki Haley’s case, it is well-documented that neither one of her parents were citizens, natural born or naturalized, at the time of her birth, in 1972.  Investigative journalist Laura Loomer previously reported that a South Carolina-based newspaper included a quote from the Office of Nikki Haley in 2015, stating that “her parents were not U.S. Citizens at the time of her birth in 1972 and did not become citizens until 1978 and 2003” (read Loomer’s full report breaking down Haley’s parents’ citizenship and legal analysis here).  Thus, although the parents may have been lawful residents at the time of her birth on South Carolina soil, which may or may not confer Haley with the privileges of citizenship, importantly, it is obvious that she does not qualify for the Constitution’s higher requirement of natural-born citizenship.

Ingrassia based that observation on an August 12, 2020 article published in Newsweek by then-Chapman University law professor and Trump supporter John Eastman. 

In his editorial, which caused much consternation and prompted Newsweek to issue an apology, Eastman questioned whether then-vice-presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris was entitled to basic U.S. citizenship at the time of her birth, let alone whether she met the criteria for “natural born Citizen” which the 12th Amendment requires of all vice-presidential candidates. 

He contended, however, that if she were a “citizen at birth,” she was a “natural-born citizen and hence eligible” (for the presidency). 

Referring to the oft-cited 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Eastman wrote:

“Were Harris’ parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood.”

Eastman also questioned whether Harris was ever “naturalized,” either by derivative citizenship through one of her parents or independently after age 16 based on immigration law at the time.

Although now a sitting vice president, Harris has released no immigration or naturalization information on her parents or herself.

By virtue of the circumstances of her birth, on January 1 Ingrassia declared Haley in “flagrant defiance of the Constitution’s textual prerogative,” which, he wrote, “if left unchecked, will further erode what remnants of that original tapestry survive, thrusting all that remains of the Framers’ now enervated handiwork into inexorably aimless waters.”

Ingrassia placed Harris in the same category as Haley in flouting the intent of the Framers regarding the highest office in the nation. ”The Framers had a robust understanding of natural right,” Ingrassia wrote (emphasis his).  “They fiercely upheld the view that duties must be imposed on the body politic in general, and certain outstanding statesmen in particular, in order to meet the higher demands of elected office. Doing so would, they hoped, perpetuate the original social contract for posterity.  To the extent that model has irreparably broken down in modern times, it is because of flagrant violations lawmakers, like Nikki Haley and Kamala Harris, have committed in the subsequent centuries against the Constitution’s intended meaning.  This has gradually whittled the Framers’ once robust tapestry down to the bone, producing a crisis whereby persons, with no historical awareness nor reverence for the Constitution’s textual meaning or purpose, openly defy its conditions willy-nilly, out of personal vanity or even resentment.  Nikki Haley’s flagrant defiance of the Constitution’s textual prerogative, if left unchecked, will further erode what remnants of that original tapestry survive, thrusting all that remains of the Framers’ now enervated handiwork into inexorably aimless waters.”

On January 19, Ingrassia wrote a follow-up column in which he reiterated his stance that “Nikki Haley, the daughter of two non-citizens, is patently ineligible to serve as President or Vice President under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.” Further, he opined that “President Trump’s legal team – or, ideally, the Republican National Committee – should file a lawsuit to automatically challenge Nikki Haley’s eligibility for President.  It is clear, based on the original understanding of natural-born citizenship, that Haley is ineligible to serve as President – as well as Vice President, under the Twelfth Amendment” (emphasis the author’s). 

In Thursday’s column, Ingrassia made it clear he is not a Trump campaign figure and has already made his own choice as to who he believes would serve most effectively as Trump’s vice president: investigative journalist/commentator Tucker Carlson, included in Ingrassia’s speculative list of candidates.

“A few names on this list are probably not even in contention but have only been listed because they have stirred up the rumor mill, and as a result have many people talking, rightly or wrongly, about their chances of being selected,” Ingrassia wrote.  “It should also be stressed that this list is far from being exhaustive: there is the likelihood that several notable omissions – such as Kristi Noem – might well be strong contenders and have greater odds than even some of the names listed here.”

The first person Ingrassia discussed was former 2024 Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, a Harvard Law School graduate and successful entrepreneur. Overall, Ingrassia appeared to view Ramaswamy as a sincere and strong supporter of Trump’s “America First” agenda. ”…he has demonstrated a commitment to the cause and principles of America First, and so far, appears genuinely interested in righting the course of this country,” Ingrassia wrote.

He noted, however, that “Some concerns remain about his background, his fortune, and even his citizenship…,” although without pointing out that Ramaswamy was born into very similar circumstances as Haley.

According to his Wikipedia biography, Ramaswamy was born on August 9, 1985 in Cincinnati, OH to “Indian immigrant parents.” In an interview last fall, Ramaswamy told NBC News that neither of his parents naturalized before his birth, while only his mother naturalized afterward.

While contending that in addition to the above concerns, Ramaswamy has exhibited “quirks that sometimes irritated the Trump base, such as overtalking at times and making absurd statements here and there…,” Ingrassia wrote he “would probably rank Ramaswamy third, behind Kari Lake and Tucker Carlson, in my overall MAGA power rankings” and enumerating what he sees as Ramaswamy’s strong points, including his youth.

“Ramaswamy might ultimately prove himself a worthy voice in the movement Trump launched,” Ingrassia wrote.  “Perhaps he is not to be entrusted just yet with the lofty post of second in command but might over time prove himself to be a reliable, and powerful, truthteller – one that could rise above the trenchant mediocrity of our ruling class and become a mainstay in the movement for hopefully many years to come.”

Nevertheless, Ingrassia opined that Ramaswamy’s role might be not in public elected office, but rather, in leading the Republican National Committee (RNC). “If it were up to me, I think Ramaswamy’s talents should first be tested at arm’s length– Ronna McDaniel’s replacement as RNC Chair would be an ideal fit,” Ingrassia mused.  “Such a post could be the ultimate telltale of whether he can turn an organization, now struggling mightily to raise money, around – and, by extension, use the influence of that post to get state Republican leaders, many of whom only support the cause out of political convenience, in lockstep with MAGA, which must become the establishment for the GOP if both party and country are to have any hope at all of surviving beyond the next four years of President Trump’s next term.”