One of Donald Trump's first acts as the 47th president of the United States was to signal an end to automatic "birthright citizenship" – but implementing his plan will not be straightforward.

What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which decrees that all persons born in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are automatically citizens at birth.

The 14th Amendment is already understood to exclude children born to invading armies or foreign diplomats, who are considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. But a minority of constitutional scholars argue that unauthorised immigrants or those on temporary visas should not be considered as subject to the jurisdiction of the US either. Such a reading "conflicts with the clear text and a legal interpretation more than a century old", said CNN, but has nonetheless gained ground in some conservative circles.

What does Trump want to do?
Trump's executive order would mean children born in the US without at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident would no longer automatically become US citizens at birth. Federal agencies would be banned from issuing or recognising documentation proving US citizenship for such children.

In 2022, the latest year for which data is available, there were 1.2 million US citizens born to unauthorised immigrant parents, according to the Pew Research Centre – although the order does not suggest that the new restrictions would apply retrospectively.

Will he succeed?
"Probably not", at least not with his executive order, said The Guardian. Trump will face "significant legal hurdles", said the BBC. Eighteen states, along with the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia, have already launched legal challenges to the executive order. Removing or changing a constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress. 

Ultimately, the question is likely to go to the Supreme Court. The highest court of the land has not made any ruling connected to the 14th Amendment since 1898, but "a new conservative supermajority has given Trump supporters hope", said CNN.

Younger generations appear to be flocking to astrology in huge numbers. A recent US survey found that 80% of Gen Z and younger millennials believe in the celestial pseudoscience, the "astrology" hashtag has more than 4.5 million videos on TikTok, and the UK's Astrological Association has even launched an online magazine targeted at younger generations.

'Contextualise the chaos'
Gen Z are growing up in "an uncertain world", said the Times of India, a period marked by "economic challenges, political unrest, and environmental concerns". Belief in astrology "helps contextualise the chaos, whether it's a bad day explained by Mercury retrograde or a tough year blamed on Saturn return".

And although technological advances "tend to weaken pseudoscience", said The Economist, in astrology's case they seem to have "expanded its reach". AI is "making access to prophecies even easier" – rather than needing to see an astrologer in person, people use digital services. For instance, spending on fortune-telling apps is soaring.

'Subcontracting challenging choices'
I understand the appeal of astrology for the younger generation, said Helen Coffey in The Independent. In "an increasingly broken world" with climate change, the "rise of the far-right" and "some of the worst men in human history" being "also the richest in human history", who "wouldn't want to turn to the galaxy at large for help"? But "don't make the mistake of thinking that burning orbs thousands of light years away know you better than you know yourself", nor that "learning about the lunar nodes" can "help you take back control in a chaotic universe".

This is nothing new, said The Times. "Faced with paying off student loans while finding the rent for a matchbox and a partner to boot," Gen Z would "rather have something else in charge of their lives than themselves". But in "substituting Venus and Mars for mum and dad they are merely following in the ancient human tradition of subcontracting challenging choices and responsibility for events to a higher power".

"In the wrong hands", Amy Jephta's new play could have become a "very conventional critique" of South African society, said Clive Davis in The Times. Yet this "quirky" satire "sends you home with awkward questions buzzing around in your head".

Unsurprisingly, race lies at the heart of the domestic drama, but the "mischievous" production also "homes in on subtle questions of class and money" too. The story follows Bonolo (Mimî M. Khayisa) and Sihle (Sifiso Mazibuko), a Black middle-class couple who have recently moved to a "manicured suburb" in South Africa. When an unsightly shack appears on a nearby plot of land, "threatening to bring down property values", white neighbours "brazenly" recruit Bonolo and Sihle to a local group tasked with getting rid of it.

The affluent residents' "paranoid assumptions" quickly bring out "deep-rooted prejudices in this biting, subversive satire", said Dave Fargnoli in The Stage. Jephta's "richly drawn characters" are "intriguingly flawed", with Khayisa "gripping" as the "fabulously frosty" and "pretentious" Bonolo. The arguments between Bonolo and Sihle feel "real and complex", making the occasional "breakouts of didacticism" elsewhere feel "jarring", said Arifa Akbar in The Guardian.

Jephta "mercilessly skewers" middle-class prejudices and "latent racist white fears", painting a "bleak" picture of a "Rainbow Nation ill at ease with itself", said Lindsay Johns in The Telegraph. In all, it's a "morally nuanced, exhilarating and deeply humane work" that marks Jephta as one of South Africa's "leading contemporary playwrights".

At the Royal Court Theatre, London, until 8 February, then at Bristol Old Vic from 14 February to 8 March

Harry will feel this is justice for his mother
Alison Phillips in The i Paper
Prince Harry's battle with Rupert Murdoch "appears to have ended in a score draw", writes Alison Phillips. Harry gets a "fulsome apology and a bag of cash" and Murdoch's empire gets to "put this saga behind it". But while "both sides have grounds for celebration, or at least relief", Harry may also get "something far deeper" – "peace of mind". This admission from News Group Newspapers is "also an apology being sent beyond the grave to Princess Diana".

Could the Bank of England push the UK into recession?
Damian Pudner in City A.M.
Quantitative easing has "long been the Bank of England's monetary-policy nuclear option", writes Damian Pudner, but its "hidden costs" are "coming into sharp focus" at "the worst possible time". Once "hailed as a saviour", QE injected £450 billion into a "Covid-stricken economy", but that "sowed the seeds" of the current inflation crisis. Now, "time is running out", but it's "not too late" for the Bank to "show pragmatism and avoid tipping the UK into recession".

Elon Musk is causing trouble in Europe. What's in it for him?
Rob Picheta on CNN
Having "spent a quarter-billion dollars to help reelect Donald Trump", Elon Musk "appears to have a new goal: upend Europe", writes Rob Picheta. It's not clear how much of his political activism is ideological and how much motivated by financial considerations – Musk has "railed against red tape surrounding the tech sector in Europe". But "X's reach, Musk's extreme wealth and his role as an efficiency adviser to Trump" mean he is a uniquely "difficult problem" for Europe's leaders