President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on August 6, 2026, to restrict birthright citizenship, narrowing the scope of an earlier directive that the Supreme Court struck down in a 6-3 ruling on June 30 [1][2][4]. One order prohibits birth tourism — the practice of traveling to the United States to give birth so the child obtains citizenship — while the other expands categories of people whose US-born children would be ineligible for citizenship, including children of foreign government employees, members of foreign terrorist organizations, and certain people in US territories if Congress acts [3][6][11]. Trump described the Supreme Court's rejection of his previous order as a very unfortunate decision and said his administration was making adjustments because the situation is very unfair [2][11][13].

White House advisor Stephen Miller announced that the practice of birth tourism is, as of the signing of the order, hereby banned, stating that no one in the world is anymore allowed to obtain a visa for this fraudulent purpose [6][13][14]. Miller said people enter the country pretending to be tourists wanting to visit Disneyland when the real purpose is to give birth so the child becomes an automatic US citizen [4][15][16]. The executive order itself declares that citizenship is not a commodity to be acquired through calculated exploitation and evasion of the immigration laws [25].

Trump and Miller argue the 14th Amendment was written narrowly to secure citizenship for children of formerly enslaved people and has no broader application to modern immigration. Trump stated: "This was done for a different reason. This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves, and what's happening now?" [13][20]. Miller insisted the amendment was passed exclusively in the aftermath of the Civil War to ensure the children of slaves would be citizens and had no other meaning or purpose outside of that [20]. The Supreme Court's majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, found scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view and wrote that the amendment's authors extended the promise of citizenship to every free-born person in the land [2][7][12]. Roberts wrote: "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. We keep that promise today" [1][13].

Legal scholars and civil society groups say the new orders will meet the same fate as the previous one. UC Davis law professor Gabriel Chin stated that once a child is born in the United States, the president has no power to decide that child is not a citizen [4]. Constitutional law expert Kimberly Wehle said the orders look like what Donald Trump is setting up is a clash between himself and the authority of the United States Supreme Court and predicted they will be deemed unconstitutional [2]. Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, stated: "The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution" [20]. Deborah Fleischaker of UnidosUS said the orders are nothing more than an attempt to get around the Supreme Court ruling [7].

The factual basis for the crackdown is itself disputed. Trump has claimed hundreds of thousands of women come to the United States for birth tourism [12][16]. The Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower immigration levels, estimated in a 2020 analysis that between 20,000 and 25,000 mothers came for birth tourism in a year-long period between 2016 and 2017 [13][14][16]. The Migration Policy Institute estimates 22,000 to 26,000 birth tourism babies annually, with government data showing 9,600 births to mothers with foreign addresses in 2024 [12][20]. RFI reported that experts consider the phenomenon very marginal [15].

Legal experts and some lawmakers argue that only a constitutional amendment — not legislation or executive action — can alter birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling. University of Oregon law professor Garrett Epps said there is no language in the majority opinion suggesting Congress could change the rule by statute [21]. Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Muzaffar Chishti stated that Trump lost this one plain and simple and that only a constitutional amendment can change the current understanding [21]. House Speaker Mike Johnson said you have to amend the Constitution to fix this [23]. Senator Mike Lee has called for a constitutional amendment to exclude foreign nationals who break immigration laws from birthright citizenship, and Senator Eric Schmitt has announced he will introduce a constitutional amendment to limit citizenship to those who owe allegiance to the nation [21][22].

Advocates for asylum seekers and children's welfare warn that narrowing birthright citizenship could render US-born children of immigrants stateless. Lily, a Ukrainian asylum-seeker, said: "My baby deserves citizenship. He shouldn't be stateless" [27]. Conchita Cruz of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project warned that children of millions of immigrants could be left without access to any identification [27]. Viviana, an undocumented Ecuadorian mother of a four-year-old US-born daughter, said: "I am very afraid. My daughter would lose her rights" [27]. Bruce Lesley of First Focus on Children stated that ending birthright citizenship would delay nutrition, medical, and educational services for children [27]. Zain Lakhani of the Women's Refugee Commission said the orders could trample the rights of pregnant women seeking lawful entry in one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives [7].

Democratic lawmakers and diaspora advocacy leaders praised the Supreme Court's ruling as upholding a 150-year constitutional promise. Representative Pramila Jayapal stated: "अगर आप अमेरिका में पैदा हुए हैं, तो आप अमेरिकी हैं। बस इतनी सी बात है" (If you are born in America, you are American. It is that simple) [34]. Representative Ami Bera said the Supreme Court did the right thing by protecting birthright citizenship [34]. Chintan Patel of Indian American Impact said the ruling powerfully confirms who belongs in America and that Trump's executive order posed the greatest threat to Indian and South Asian diaspora families, particularly H-1B visa holders whose US-born children's citizenship was at stake [34].

Birth tourism industry representatives report that the debate for affected families has shifted from whether a child will gain citizenship to whether pregnant travelers can enter the United States at all. Ms. Zhang of BabyBelly, a Taiwan-based overseas birth center, said: "现在大家最关心的焦点，已经从'孩子有没有公民权'转移到'孕妇还能不能顺利入境'" (The focus of concern has shifted from whether the child will have citizenship to whether the pregnant woman can successfully enter the country), with some clients considering Canada as an alternative [28]. California-based immigration lawyer Huang Xiaosheng analyzed that the biggest impact on the Chinese immigrant community is not citizenship for the child but the prospect of tighter visa reviews and enhanced entry questioning [28].

Trump vowed to immediately request a new hearing before the Supreme Court, calling the previous decision an absolute madness that will destroy America if not modified [10]. Immigration attorney Tammy Fox-Isicoff predicted the orders will be challenged in court and tossed out [18]. The BBC reported that the United States is one of about 30 countries — mostly in the Americas — that grant automatic citizenship to anyone born within their borders [26], while The Guardian noted that 32 other countries have similar birthright citizenship laws [12][20].