Summary in Seconds
President Donald Trump has reignited the debate over birthright citizenship with an executive order seeking to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen or non-resident parents. While courts have blocked parts of the policy, a Supreme Court ruling has allowed limited enforcement in some states. The move challenges more than a century of legal precedent under the 14th Amendment and could reshape the very definition of what it means to be an American citizen
Trump’s Plan to Redefine American Citizenship
President Donald Trump is pursuing a policy aimed at ending automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or legal permanent residents.
While his initial executive order, issued in January 2025, was blocked by lower courts, a June 2025 Supreme Court ruling has allowed the policy to take effect in some states while litigation continues.
Trump’s Executive Order
On his first day in office, Trump signed Executive Order 14156, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order directs federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents—such as passports and Social Security cards—to children who fall into one of two categories:
- Undocumented mothers: Children born to mothers who are in the U.S. without legal status, where the father is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
- Temporary status: Children born to mothers who are in the U.S. on a temporary but lawful status (such as a student or tourist visa), where the father is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Legal Challenges and Current Status
The executive order has faced immediate and significant legal challenges.
- Nationwide injunctions: Several federal district courts, including those in Washington and Maryland, issued nationwide injunctions blocking the order’s implementation, citing its likely unconstitutionality.
- Supreme Court ruling: The Supreme Court later limited the scope of these injunctions, allowing the birthright citizenship policy to proceed in states not involved in the lawsuits. However, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the order itself.
- Current legal status: The legal battle remains ongoing. While the Supreme Court’s ruling permitted partial implementation, birthright citizenship continues to be protected in other states. Advocacy groups have since launched new lawsuits challenging the order through additional legal avenues.
The Broader Legal and Constitutional Context
At the heart of the controversy is Trump’s attempt to reinterpret the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the 14th Amendment.
- The 14th Amendment: Ratified after the Civil War, it declares that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
- Long-standing interpretation: For more than a century, courts and legal scholars have overwhelmingly agreed that this clause grants citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil—regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
- Constitutional hurdles: Most constitutional experts contend that changing this principle would require a constitutional amendment, not an executive order. Such an amendment would demand approval from two-thirds of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states—a political and procedural challenge of the highest order.
Potential Impacts
Critics warn that if the policy were ultimately upheld, it could create a permanent underclass of stateless children, disrupting families and jeopardizing access to basic services such as healthcare, education, and legal protection.
Supporters, however, argue that the policy would uphold the “integrity” of citizenship and deter illegal immigration—though such claims remain deeply contested in legal and humanitarian circles.
A Defining Legal Moment
This is a complex and rapidly evolving situation with profound legal and constitutional implications. The coming months will determine not only the fate of Trump’s executive order but also the future meaning of what it means to be born American.
Conclusion
Across both parts of this series, The Story of Citizenship in the United States traced the long, contested evolution of belonging in America—from the fragile promises of the post–Revolution era to the fierce constitutional debates of the modern day.
Part One explored how citizenship was built, restricted, and redefined through centuries of struggle—shaped by race, gender, and the expanding meaning of equality.
Part Two brought the story into the present, examining former President Trump’s attempt to reinterpret the 14th Amendment and limit birthright citizenship—reviving questions as old as the Republic itself. Together, these articles reveal that American citizenship has never been a settled fact, but a living, evolving idea—continually tested by politics, power, and the nation’s ongoing struggle to define who truly belongs.
Sources:
1. Bill Chappell. “What is birthright citizenship and what happens after the Supreme Court ruling?” National, 27 June, 2025.
2. Luis Barrucho. “Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. Where do other countries stand?” BBC World Service, 27 June, 2025.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c983g6zpz28o
3. Multiple Authors. “History of immigration and nationality law in the United States.” Wikipedia, 9 October, 2025.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_and_nationality_law_in_the_United_States
4. Rachel Treisman. “Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. That’s easier said than done.” NPR, May 15, 2025
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/23/nx-s1-5270572/birthright-citizenship-trump-executive-order