Trump signs executive orders targeting birthright citizenship and 'birth tourism'

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed a pair of executive orders aimed at restricting birthright citizenship and curbing so-called “birth tourism,” just one month after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his first attempt to end the constitutional guarantee. The orders, which have not yet been made public, apparently expand the administration’s definition of children who would be deemed ineligible for automatic U.S. citizenship, and seek to prohibit foreign nationals from traveling to the United States specifically to give birth.

Trump asserted that “hundreds of thousands” of people engage in birth tourism, a figure that appears wildly inflated. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the highest census-based estimate places the number of birth-tourism babies at 22,000 to 26,000 annually, while government data show just 9,600 births to mothers with foreign addresses in 2024.

What the new orders attempt to do

The executive orders aim to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to mothers who are in the country temporarily, particularly those who arrive with the intent of giving birth. The White House has indicated that these orders will broaden the categories of individuals whose children are not covered by the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, although the exact language remains under seal. The administration also intends to direct federal agencies to prioritize enforcement against suspected birth tourists, including visa restrictions and enhanced scrutiny of pregnant travelers.

Legal experts have already questioned the constitutionality of these measures, noting that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The Supreme Court’s unanimous rejection of Trump’s earlier executive order in July reaffirmed that principle, though the new orders may attempt to draw distinctions based on parental immigration status or intent.

The reality behind “birth tourism”

The president’s claim of “hundreds of thousands” of birth-tourism cases each year does not align with available data. The Migration Policy Institute’s estimate—based on Census Bureau statistics—suggests that no more than 26,000 such births occur annually, and the actual figure may be considerably lower. In 2024, federal records documented only 9,600 live births to women with foreign addresses, a number that includes not only birth tourists but also diplomats, foreign students, and others living temporarily in the U.S. Even the highest estimate represents a minuscule fraction of the roughly 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. each year.

The administration has not explained how it would distinguish a “birth tourist” from a legitimate visitor who happens to give birth while on a business trip or family visit. Immigration lawyers note that proving intent to circumvent citizenship laws is legally complex and would likely require invasive questioning of pregnant travelers or new data-sharing systems at hospitals.

A telling family history

The irony of Trump’s crackdown is not lost on observers. His own father, Fred Trump, was born in 1905 in Queens, New York, to a mother who had arrived from Germany just six months earlier while pregnant. At that time, she was not a U.S. citizen, yet Fred automatically gained citizenship at birth under the same constitutional provision Trump now seeks to narrow. Trump’s mother, Mary Anne Trump, was born in Scotland and gave birth to her first two children—Trump’s older siblings—in the U.S. before she herself became a citizen years later.

Those family circumstances illustrate how birthright citizenship has historically applied to children of non-citizen mothers, regardless of the parents’ status or intentions, as long as the birth occurs on American soil.

The road ahead

The new executive orders are likely to face immediate legal challenges from civil rights organizations and state attorneys general. The Supreme Court’s prior ruling that struck down the first attempt was based on the clear text of the Constitution, and legal analysts say the revised orders may suffer the same fate unless they introduce statutory distinctions that Congress has not authorized. Meanwhile, the administration could attempt to implement the orders through executive-branch actions, such as denying passports or Social Security numbers to affected children, creating a bureaucratic battle over citizenship status.

For now, the orders remain unissued publicly, and their precise scope is unknown. But the president’s determination to revisit the issue, despite the Supreme Court’s rebuke, signals that the legal fight over birthright citizenship is far from over. With a polarized Congress and no new legislation, the future of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee may ultimately rest with the courts—and the next presidential election.