Trump signs new executive orders to narrow birthright citizenship after Supreme Court setback

By /
Donald Trump

Coverage spread: 5 sources — 4 left · 1 center

Lean ratings via AllSides / Media Bias-Fact-Check. How this works.

Where they agree

  • Trump signed two executive orders on birthright citizenship, one expanding ineligible categories and one targeting “birth tourism.”
  • This follows the Supreme Court striking down Trump’s earlier, broader executive order on the same issue about five weeks prior.
  • The orders are widely expected to face legal challenges and possibly be struck down like the first attempt.
  • Stephen Miller was the administration’s chief spokesperson explaining the orders’ intent, particularly regarding birth tourism.

Where they differ

  • The Guardian devotes significant space to debunking Trump’s “hundreds of thousands” birth tourism claim using Migration Policy Institute data, while CBS News reports Miller’s rationale more straightforwardly without contesting the numbers.
  • A separate Guardian piece frames the story historically, tracing Trump’s birthright citizenship fixation back to 2015 and linking it to John Eastman’s legal theories, an angle other outlets omit.
  • The Guardian’s live coverage foregrounds the ACLU’s swift, sharply worded rejection (“doomed to fail in court”), while CBS News focuses more on the mechanics of what the orders say.
  • NBC News (Today) frames the story briefly around the birth tourism crackdown angle, while CBS News gives more granular detail on the specific categories of people listed in the orders.

President Trump signed two new executive orders on Thursday aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, just five weeks after the Supreme Court struck down his earlier, broader attempt to end the constitutional guarantee. The new orders expand the categories of children who would be denied automatic citizenship and target so-called “birth tourism,” setting up another likely court fight.

What do the new orders actually do?

The first order broadens the list of children ineligible for automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Historically, exceptions have applied to children of foreign diplomats, occupying foreign forces, and those born on foreign ships or to certain Indigenous Americans. The new order adds children of members of “foreign terrorist organizations” and people who “lobby and act on behalf of foreign governments,” according to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, though it’s unclear exactly who falls into that second group. It also widens the diplomat exception to cover more foreign government employees, denies citizenship to children whose parents committed “fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship,” and addresses people born in U.S. territories “where citizenship is not conferred by federal statute” — currently just American Samoa. The order does not apply to children with at least one U.S.-citizen parent.

The second order targets “birth tourism” — people traveling to the U.S. specifically to give birth so their child gains citizenship. It would deny citizenship documents to children born after a parent engaged in “a commercial transaction” to ensure the mother was present in the U.S. or a U.S. territory for the birth. Miller described it as people posing as tourists, claiming they’re visiting Disneyland or a national park, when the real purpose is securing citizenship for a child, which he said grants access to welfare benefits and eventually voting rights.

How big is the birth tourism problem Trump describes?

Trump claimed, without offering evidence, that “hundreds of thousands” of people practice birth tourism, calling it “a disgrace” and saying people are “buying their way in.” That figure appears inflated: the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute’s highest census-based estimate puts birth tourism at 22,000 to 26,000 babies born annually in the U.S., while government data show just 9,600 births in 2024 to mothers with foreign addresses.

Why did the Supreme Court reject Trump’s first attempt?

Sources note the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s original, more sweeping executive order — issued to deny automatic citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents — in a decision Trump called “very unfortunate” and said was “close.” He told reporters Thursday, “So we’re making adjustments because it’s very unfair.” The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. Trump and allies have long argued the amendment was meant only to address the aftermath of slavery, a reading most legal scholars reject.

How is this part of a longer campaign?

The Guardian traces Trump’s fixation on ending birthright citizenship back over a decade, to a 2015 campaign event in Orlando where he used the term “anchor babies” and claimed a constitutional amendment wasn’t needed, just “a simple act of Congress” — or possibly nothing at all. In 2018, as president, he told an interviewer he believed he could end birthright citizenship by executive order, an idea backed at the time mainly by John Eastman, a lawyer later tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, who has argued the 14th Amendment excludes children of non-citizens.

What happens next?

Legal challenges are expected quickly. The ACLU has already dismissed the new orders, with Cody Wofsy, deputy director of its Immigrants’ Rights Project, saying the Supreme Court “already decided this issue” and that no executive order can rewrite the Constitution’s meaning. He predicted the new orders “will meet the same fate as the last one.” NBC News similarly reports that critics expect the orders to be blocked again in court.

Sources

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top