Trump Gets Nasty Surprise Outside Supreme Court From America’s Top Celebs

President Donald Trump made history Wednesday, becoming the first sitting president ever to attend oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court—a bold move underscoring the high stakes of his push to end automatic birthright citizenship for children of those in the country illegally or temporarily.

But outside the Court, left-wing activists and celebrity figures gathered to protest the effort, amplifying familiar talking points as the nation approaches its 250th anniversary.

Among them was celebrity chef and activist José Andrés, who accused Trump of attempting to rewrite long-standing rules.

“The argument is that this country, this year, is celebrating 250 years! It’s not the time to be changing the game’s rules. Those rules have been already done,” Andrés said. “Let’s keep working to make sure that the 15 million immigrants become part of America. This is what America should be working towards.”

Andrés also criticized Trump for “changing the game’s rules,” arguing those rules “have been already done” and suggesting that tightening birthright citizenship is not what America “should be working towards.”

Other demonstrators echoed similar concerns, despite the administration’s argument that the 14th Amendment has been widely misinterpreted and never intended to grant automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of parental status.

“Well, I don’t know that there should be no limits, but there certainly shouldn’t be the limits that are proposed. And Justice Robert said it way better than I could. It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” one protester told Fox News Digital while holding a small dog wearing a sign that read “NO KINGS. ONLY B—-ES.”

Another protester warned, “We are setting ourselves up for a two-tiered, or hierarchy of citizenship, you know. Why is it that some people who are born here get to be citizens and other people are not, based on who their parents’ ancestry is? To me that just violates the core concept of equality that our country is supposed to be founded on.”

“It will help regulations when it comes to certain laws. And it was kind of – the hearing itself – it was educational, a lot of things to take, and things to learn from the 14th Amendment,” another added.

“We have a 14th Amendment for a reason,” one activist said. “We can’t rewrite the Constitution.”

Inside the courtroom, Hollywood actor Robert De Niro—a longtime Trump critic—was also present, seated among guests of the justices. After the hearing, De Niro struggled to articulate a clear takeaway from the arguments.

“I’m waiting to get a, getting a – I’m not sure because I could hear, but not hear. It’s complicated. So, I can’t say,” De Niro responded when asked about the oral arguments he had just witnessed.

Still, he quickly pivoted to attacking Trump, claiming the administration’s position was designed to “get rid of people they don’t want.”

When asked about accusations of “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” De Niro dismissed them outright.

“People don’t like him for a reason,” De Niro shot back. “All the terrible things he’s done. If he did nice things, then he could have, he had the chance — he became president — to do nice things, not hateful, retribution, not just, outright mean things. If he did nice things, people would love him. But he’s got a problem. He’s damaged.”

Asked what specifically bothered him about Trump, De Niro said “everything.”

“Everything that we all know now,” he added while leaving the courthouse.

The case—centered on whether the Constitution mandates automatic citizenship for children born to non-citizens—represents one of the most consequential legal battles over immigration policy in decades. Early reporting indicated the Court may be skeptical of Trump’s argument, following more than two hours of intense questioning.

Also in attendance were key administration figures, including former Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, highlighting the administration’s unified front as it seeks to fundamentally reshape how citizenship is defined in the United States.