Why Senator Eric Schmitt’s Record Should Concern Every American
Eric Schmitt is telling you what he wants America to become. Believe him.
Today, Senator Eric Schmitt came across like a real asshole when questioning former pardon attorney, Liz Oyer. Every comment, every sound bite, every bit of manufactured outrage looked less like oversight and more like an audition. The performance wasn’t for the American people. It was for the man in the Oval Office, whose ring he’s been kissing for a long time.
Watch Liz later today with Katie Couric.
The Question Every American Must Answer
What happens when a United States senator begins describing America as an inheritance passed down by a particular ancestral people, supports an effort that threatened the certified election results of four states, and works to narrow the citizenship promise written into the Fourteenth Amendment?
You need to answer that question now, because Senator Eric Schmitt is giving you evidence in his own words, his court filings, and his proposed laws.
Listen closely to the language he chooses. Study the legal fights he enters. Watch where he stands when Donald Trump collides with election results, federal investigators, or constitutional limits.
A pattern comes into view.
As Missouri attorney general, Schmitt led seventeen states in urging the Supreme Court to hear Texas’s attempt to stop Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin from relying on their challenged election results when appointing presidential electors. Missouri later sought permission to intervene in the case. The Supreme Court refused to hear Texas’s complaint because Texas lacked standing to challenge how other states conducted their elections.
Schmitt later joined an amicus brief defending a special master order favorable to Trump after the Mar a Lago search.
He now speaks about America as a homeland shaped by Western settlers, European Christian pilgrims, inherited memory, and an ancestral people.
He supported Trump’s executive order restricting citizenship for some children born in the United States. After the Supreme Court rejected that interpretation, Schmitt announced a constitutional amendment and introduced a bill seeking to limit citizenship at birth to children of citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Each act tells part of the same political story.
Schmitt is asking you to accept a country where public officials challenge certified votes when their candidate loses, describe national belonging through ancestry and inherited culture, and seek to narrow a constitutional rule that has protected citizenship at birth for generations.
Here is the line worth carrying with you.
When politicians start sorting Americans by votes, blood, birth, and loyalty, freedom reaches the chopping block.
The Day Missouri Tried to Reach Into Four Other States
Picture election day in your own neighborhood.
You stand beneath bright fluorescent lights. You show your identification. You sign your name. You step behind a thin plastic screen and mark your ballot. The machine takes the paper. A poll worker hands you a sticker.
Your vote joins millions of others.
The state counts those votes. Officials certify the result. Presidential electors prepare to cast their ballots.
Then an attorney general from another state asks the Supreme Court to stop your state from using the certified result.
That is the legal effort Schmitt supported after the 2020 election.
Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order barring those states from using the challenged election results to appoint presidential electors. Schmitt led a coalition of seventeen states urging the Court to accept the case and supporting Texas’s claim that nonlegislative state officials had unlawfully changed election rules. Missouri then joined a request to intervene.
The Supreme Court said Texas had no judicially recognizable interest in how another state conducted its elections. The Court denied permission to file the complaint for lack of standing. It did not hold a trial or decide every factual allegation. It closed the courthouse door because Texas had no legal right to bring the case.
Consider what Schmitt asked the Court to entertain.
Missouri voters elected him to represent Missouri’s legal interests. The filing sought federal intervention in the certified presidential results of four other states. The requested relief threatened to prevent those states from relying on the voters’ certified choice and could have shifted the selection of electors into a different process.
What would you call a system where officials from another state seek to block your state’s certified vote because their preferred presidential candidate lost?
What would you tell your child about elections where political leaders accept victories and place defeats before judges in search of another result?
A democracy survives through a basic agreement. We count lawful votes. We follow the governing rules. We use the courts for genuine legal disputes. We respect the result once lawful challenges end.
Schmitt placed Missouri behind a case that put that agreement at risk.
Senator Cory Booker standing up for Liz Oyer 🔥
Trump’s DOJ fired Liz after she refused to restore the gun rights of celebrity, Mel Gibson, a friend of President Trump.
According to the allegations and the law enforcement investigation, Gibson repeatedly punched his girlfriend in the face and head, knocking out or breaking two of her front teeth and causing a concussion, struck her while she was holding their two-month-old daughter, causing an abrasion to the infant’s chin, and threatened her with a handgun during the incident. Gibson ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor.
The Mar a Lago Intervention
Now walk into another scene.
Federal agents enter Mar a Lago under a court authorized search warrant. They recover government records, including about one hundred documents bearing classified markings. A federal judge appoints a special master and temporarily limits investigators’ access to some of the seized material. The Justice Department asks the Eleventh Circuit to restore its ability to use the documents bearing classified markings in its criminal investigation.
Schmitt enters the case through Missouri’s attorney general’s office.
He joins ten other Republican attorneys general in an amicus brief supporting Trump’s position. The brief defends the special master process and urges the appellate court to reject the Justice Department’s request for immediate access to the disputed documents.
The filing does not prove Schmitt endorsed every claim Trump made about the records. It does not decide whether Trump committed a crime. It does not establish the legal classification status of every document or invalidate the search warrant.
The filing establishes something narrower and still revealing.
When Trump faced a federal documents investigation, Schmitt used Missouri’s public legal office to support a court order that limited the investigation.
Due process belongs to every person. Trump had lawyers, motions, hearings, appellate review, and access to the federal courts. The question for Schmitt concerns Missouri.
What concrete interest did Missouri have in the handling of documents recovered from Donald Trump’s private club in Florida?
Why did the people of Missouri need their attorney general participating in that fight during Schmitt’s campaign for the United States Senate?
On major occasions when Trump faced legal or political danger, Schmitt placed the weight of public office behind legal positions favorable to him.
That record tells you where his instincts lead.
America Belongs to Every American
Schmitt’s own speech provides the clearest view of the country he wants you to see.
At the National Conservatism Conference in September 2025, he describes America as the achievement of Western settlers. He calls Americans the sons and daughters of Christian pilgrims who came from Europe. He celebrates Manifest Destiny, praises settlers who “tamed a continent,” and describes America as a heritage passed down through generations.
He tells the audience that America does not belong to “them.” He says the country belongs to “us,” that it is a way of life “ours, and only ours,” and that America will cease to exist if his people disappear. His political “them” includes leftist elites, radicals, and people he accuses of attacking the nation’s history and traditions.
Read those words carefully.
Schmitt does not expressly say that Black Americans, Native Americans, Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, naturalized citizens, or people without Christian faith lack legal citizenship.
His language still raises a profound question.
Who belongs inside the ancestral “us” he describes?
The Constitution gives you a civic answer. An American citizen belongs to the American political community. Full citizenship does not depend on descent from European settlers. No religious test sits beside the oath. No senator assigns different degrees of ownership according to how long your family has lived here.
Schmitt offers an account of national belonging rooted in common ancestry, inherited memory, Western civilization, Christian pilgrims, and settlers who passed the homeland to their descendants.
That account leaves millions of Americans asking where their families appear in his story.
Where is the Black family whose ancestors built American wealth under slavery?
Where are the Native peoples who lived on this land before the settlers Schmitt celebrates?
Where is the Jewish child born in St. Louis?
Where is the Muslim Marine from Detroit?
Where is the Hindu physician caring for families in Kansas City?
Where is the naturalized citizen who stood in a federal courthouse, raised a hand, renounced allegiance to another nation, and swore loyalty to the Constitution?
Schmitt might answer that every loyal citizen belongs within his understanding of the nation. His speech does not explain how Americans outside the European Christian ancestral line share equally in the inheritance he describes.
That omission matters.
Citizenship should answer the question without hesitation.
You belong. Your country does not belong to one bloodline. Your Constitution does not belong to one church. Your family’s place in America does not depend on Eric Schmitt approving your ancestry.
The Immigration Debate Becomes a Belonging Test
A nation has the authority to enforce immigration laws, protect its borders, process asylum claims, and decide how lawful immigration works.
Schmitt’s citizenship campaign reaches beyond ordinary border enforcement.
On January 29, 2026, he and Representative Chip Roy filed a Supreme Court brief supporting Trump’s executive order. The order sought to deny citizenship to certain children born in the United States when their mothers were unlawfully or temporarily present and their fathers lacked citizenship or lawful permanent residence. Schmitt argued that birthright citizenship should cover only children whose parents have a permanent and lawful bond with the United States.
On June 30, the Supreme Court rejected that position. The Court held that children born here to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also found the executive order contrary to federal citizenship law. On the day of this historical SCOTUS ruling, former White House Special Counsel, Ty Cobb, and yours truly, discussed the details and impact here.
Schmitt responded immediately.
He announced plans for a constitutional amendment limiting automatic citizenship to children of citizens and lawful permanent residents. On July 14, he introduced the American Citizenship Act, a statutory measure seeking the same basic restriction and an opportunity to return the issue to the courts.
The current law remains clear after the Supreme Court’s decision. Covered children born in the United States are citizens at birth. Trump’s order did not take effect as the governing national rule.
Schmitt wants to change that result.
Loyalty to Trump and Duty to the Constitution
Schmitt has become a prominent Senate ally of Donald Trump. Reporting has described his close White House ties and his work helping advance major administration priorities through Congress.
That relationship carries constitutional weight.
A senator swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The oath names no president. The Senate holds responsibilities that require judgment independent of the White House, including legislation, oversight, advice and consent, and protection of Congress’s constitutional authority.
Schmitt’s documented record gives voters reason to question how independently he exercises that judgment.
He led states supporting the Texas election challenge after Trump lost in 2020.
He used Missouri’s attorney general’s office to join Trump’s side in the Mar a Lago special master dispute.
He speaks of Trump’s return to power as a victory for national conservatism.
He supported Trump’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship and continued the campaign after the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s position.
The question does not require a psychiatric label or a theory about Schmitt’s private thoughts.
The record speaks.
Where does his support for Donald Trump end? What presidential act would cause him to place constitutional duty ahead of political alliance? When does a trusted Senate partner become a dependable shield?
You deserve an answer before the next constitutional crisis arrives.
How Group Loyalty Changes Judgment
You already know how group loyalty works.
A person sees misconduct by an opponent and reacts at once. The same person sees similar conduct by an ally and begins searching for context, excuses, technical defenses, and reasons to distrust the accuser.
Repetition makes the habit stronger. Each investigation becomes persecution. Each court defeat becomes corruption. Each election loss becomes fraud. Each person outside the movement becomes part of the plot.
No diagnosis is needed.
You see the method every time evidence gets replaced by identity and constitutional rules become conditional on who benefits.
Schmitt’s record feeds that habit. He encourages supporters to view Trump as the voice of a dispossessed people, investigators as political threats, immigration as a danger to national survival, and inherited national identity as something enemies seek to erase.
The circle of belonging then grows tighter. People outside the ancestral story become suspect. People who challenge the leader become enemies. Officials who enforce an inconvenient law become corrupt. Voters who choose another candidate become part of a result that lawyers try to stop.
You do not need to guess where that road leads. You need to decide whether you intend to walk down it.
What This Means for Your Children
This story reaches beyond Eric Schmitt and Donald Trump.
You are deciding what kind of country your children inherit.
Will their certified votes remain secure when powerful officials dislike the outcome Will citizenship rest on the Constitution or on the immigration status of a child’s parents? Will every American child learn that the country belongs to them in equal measure? Will senators protect constitutional limits when loyalty to a president offers greater political rewards?
The habits formed now will outlive the people forming them.
A future president will study every limit Trump tested.
A future attorney general will remember every extraordinary filing that brought applause instead of consequences.
A future senator will see how far personal loyalty carried Eric Schmitt.
Your children will live under the precedents, customs, and political expectations this generation leaves behind.
Silence becomes part of that inheritance.
Your Next Move
Read Schmitt’s filings. Read his speech. Watch his votes. Ask him direct questions.
Why did you lead Missouri into a case seeking to block four states from using their challenged presidential election results?
What concrete Missouri interest justified joining Trump’s Mar a Lago documents dispute?
Who belongs within the ancestral “us” you described at the National Conservatism Conference?
Why should a child born in the United States lose citizenship because of a parent’s immigration status?
Where does your loyalty to Donald Trump end and your independent constitutional judgment begin?
Share his answers.
Talk to your family. Write to your newspaper. Contact your senators. Attend the meeting. Support candidates who accept lawful election results, defend equal citizenship, and understand that public office belongs to the people.
Do not surrender patriotism to politicians who place certified votes at risk. Do not surrender faith to politicians who turn Christian ancestry into a measure of national belonging. Do not surrender citizenship to a movement seeking to make American birth depend on a parent’s papers.
Carry this sentence with you.
When politicians start sorting Americans by votes, blood, birth, and loyalty, freedom reaches the chopping block.
Eric Schmitt is telling you what he wants America to become.
Believe the record.
Then stand up, speak clearly, vote, and bring someone with you.
Mitch Jackson, Esq.
Related Note: Senator Cory Booker standing up for Liz Oyer
If you believe no politician should get to sort Americans by votes, blood, birth, or loyalty, support this work by upgrading your Uncensored Objection subscription. Your support helps keep these facts in front of voters, strengthens this fight, and gives us a louder voice moving forward.
Liz is great, Eff Schmitt. He is in the endless line of cult member bootlickers
If you object to Schmitt's version of America, and in Missouri, pass this on to every one you know. Do you know what the people in the St Charles area pushed on us?? This is one on the most white supremist points of views I have seen for a while. Hawley may feel this way too. I wouldn't be surprised.