Trump Signs Two Orders to Narrow Birthright Citizenship

Donald Trump put his signature Thursday on two new executive orders aimed at curtailing birthright citizenship, reviving his administration's effort on the issue weeks after the Supreme Court struck down his earlier attempt to reinterpret the 14th Amendment.

The new directives are more limited in reach than the January 2025 order that a 6-3 court majority ruled unlawful in June. Speaking at a White House signing ceremony, Trump described the new actions as "adjustments" made necessary by what he characterized as "a very unfortunate decision" from the high court.

"We had a very unfortunate decision in the Supreme Court concerning birthright, it was close," Trump said. "So we're making adjustments."

The first order instructs the secretaries of state and homeland security to deny visas to foreign nationals who travel to the United States with the declared intention of giving birth here to secure citizenship for their child — a practice the administration labels "birth tourism." White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller argued the practice amounts to fraud against the federal government.

"If you're telling a consular officer you're here as a tourist, but your true purpose and intent is to go to a baby mill, give birth and try to mint an American citizen while you're here, you are committing a fraud against the American government," Miller said.

The second order broadens the classes of people whose U.S.-born children would be denied automatic citizenship. Under its provisions, birthright citizenship would not be extended to children born to individuals classified as alien enemies of the country, people belonging to foreign terrorist organizations, foreign government employees acting in an official capacity, or individuals who obtained citizenship through fraudulent means.

Miller pointed to Section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as the legal basis for barring noncitizens who seek visas under false pretenses.

Trump contended that the 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War for the specific purpose of granting citizenship to children of formerly enslaved people, not to extend it to those with no lawful ties to the United States. The Supreme Court's June majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected what Roberts called a "dramatically revisionist view" of the amendment's text.

When pressed on whether the new orders would hold up in court, Trump expressed confidence. "I think it will," he said.

Sen. Jim Banks said in a post on X that he and a House colleague are leading legislation — the Citizenship Act — that would codify the administration's Day One executive order declaring an illegal alien invasion, deny birthright citizenship to children of those individuals, and reverse the effects of the Supreme Court's June ruling. "It's that simple," Banks wrote.

Reaction on X centered heavily on the signing itself, with users largely focused on the administration's framing of birth tourism as an exploit of the citizenship system. Broader sentiment reflected both support for the narrower orders and skepticism about their legal durability given the court's recent ruling.

The Migration Policy Institute has estimated that roughly 26,000 births per year — out of approximately 3.5 million total — could be characterized as birth-tourism births, though no official federal count exists. During Supreme Court oral arguments in April, Solicitor General John Sauer cited media estimates ranging above one million, while acknowledging no definitive figure is known.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it anticipates the new orders will be rejected by the courts. Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said the Supreme Court had already resolved the underlying question. "Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one," Wofsy said in a statement.

Constitutional law experts said the orders are likely to draw immediate legal challenges on 14th Amendment grounds, with at least one scholar predicting they would be ruled unconstitutional. The administration has signaled it is ready to continue litigating the matter.