Trump signs executive orders to limit birthright citizenship

U.S. President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on Thursday aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, marking a renewed effort to curtail the practice despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil. The orders, which focus on specific categories of individuals, seek to limit the automatic granting of citizenship to children of foreign diplomats, “alien enemies,” and those engaged in “birth tourism,” a practice the administration claims exploits the U.S. immigration system.

The executive actions come weeks after the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s previous attempt to narrow birthright citizenship, which had been struck down as unconstitutional. The court’s June ruling reaffirmed the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Trump, however, argued that the new orders fall outside the scope of the court’s decision, asserting they target “fraudulent” practices rather than the constitutional principle itself.

One order specifically prohibits citizenship for children born to foreign government employees and individuals classified as “alien enemies,” a term the administration has not fully defined. The second order tightens visa restrictions for expectant mothers, aiming to deter what the White House calls “birth tourism.” Trump’s aides claimed the policy would “ban” the practice, stating that no one would be allowed to obtain a visa for “fraudulent purposes.” The administration cited a 2020 analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies, which estimated that between 20,000 and 25,000 foreign mothers traveled to the U.S. for birth tourism annually between 2016 and 2017.

Trump defended the orders as a necessary response to what he described as a “disgrace” and a “very unfair” Supreme Court decision. “They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen,” he said during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office. The president’s prior executive order, issued in 2025, had sought to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, but it was blocked by lower courts and later invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Legal challenges to the new orders are expected, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) already criticizing the move as a futile attempt to rewrite constitutional law. Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, stated that the Supreme Court had already ruled “birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution” and that the new orders would “meet the same fate as the last one.” The ACLU argued that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply broadly, and that restricting citizenship would create “unequal classes of citizens.”

Immigration advocates and constitutional scholars echoed these concerns, emphasizing that the 14th Amendment’s language has long been interpreted to exclude only children of foreign diplomats and members of “enemy occupying forces.” The administration’s latest effort, they noted, risks further polarizing the debate over immigration policy. Critics also pointed to existing legal frameworks, such as federal regulations prohibiting the use of tourist visas for the primary purpose of obtaining citizenship, as sufficient to address concerns about fraud.

The orders could also impact individuals born in U.S. territories if Congress passes a proposed law to end automatic citizenship there. Trump’s administration has long targeted birthright citizenship as part of its broader immigration crackdown, which includes efforts to deport undocumented migrants and restrict visas for nationals of several countries. However, the Supreme Court’s rejection of his earlier approach has left the president relying on executive actions, which lack the binding force of legislation.

While the White House framed the new orders as a narrow and legally sound response to specific issues, opponents warned of broader implications for immigration policy. The dispute underscores the ongoing tension between executive authority and constitutional interpretation, as well as the political stakes of birthright citizenship in U.S. politics. As the legal battle unfolds, the fate of the orders will likely hinge on whether courts view them as a permissible adjustment to existing immigration rules or an unconstitutional attempt to undermine the 14th Amendment.