Evidence so far shows that part of Chamath’s prediction has occurred, but the core part has not yet been resolved and the stated time window (“within the next few years”) has not expired.

What has happened so far

• On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” aimed at restricting birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, especially the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”(en.wikipedia.org)
• The order triggered rapid and widespread litigation. States and civil-rights groups filed multiple suits within days, including Washington v. Trump and other challenges in federal courts around the country.(theverge.com)(en.wikipedia.org) This matches Chamath’s claim that the EO would immediately generate lawsuits.
• The Supreme Court took up Trump v. CASA, Inc., a consolidated set of cases arising from these challenges, and issued a decision on June 27, 2025—barely five months after the EO—addressing whether lower courts may issue nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of the order. That is, the issue associated with the EO reached the Court “very quickly.”(congress.gov)(congress.gov)

What has not happened yet

• In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the justices resolved only the procedural question about nationwide ("universal") injunctions. The Court explicitly did not decide whether Trump’s birthright-citizenship order is constitutional or how to reinterpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Analyses of the decision emphasize that “the court’s opinion on the constitutionality of whether some American-born children can be deprived of citizenship remains undecided” and that the fate of the EO’s core policy “was left unclear.”(theguardian.com)(congress.gov)
• The main substantive rulings so far on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in this controversy have come from lower courts, such as the Ninth Circuit, which held that Trump’s narrower, “allegiance”-based reading contradicts the original public understanding and longstanding Supreme Court precedent like United States v. Wong Kim Ark—but these are not Supreme Court merits decisions on the new EO.(reason.com)(en.wikipedia.org)

Why this is inconclusive

• Chamath’s prediction (as normalized) has two elements: (1) lawsuits will quickly send the birthright-citizenship fight to the Supreme Court, and (2) the Court will take up and opine on the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” clause in the near term (“within the next few years”).
• Element (1) is already borne out: the EO did rapidly reach the Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA, Inc. within months.(congress.gov)(constitutioncenter.org)
• Element (2) has not yet occurred: the Supreme Court has so far avoided deciding the clause’s meaning or the EO’s constitutionality, leaving those questions unresolved.(theguardian.com) However, because “within the next few years” extends beyond November 30, 2025, there is still time for the Court to grant and decide a merits case squarely addressing the Citizenship Clause.

Given this mix—partial validation (fast path to SCOTUS) but no Supreme Court merits ruling on the clause yet, with the forecast window still open—the correct classification is inconclusive, not clearly right or wrong at this time.