Past Trump Administration Efforts (2018–2020)
During his first term, President Donald Trump publicly floated the idea of ending birthright citizenship – the constitutional guarantee under the 14th Amendment that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. In October 2018, Trump said he intended to issue an executive order to redefine or restrict birthright citizenship, though he never ultimately followed through. Legal experts at the time widely doubted that a president could unilaterally undo this constitutional right, noting that it has been enshrined since the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment and affirmed by the Supreme Court’s 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision. Aside from rhetoric, the Trump administration took at least one related policy action: in January 2020, the State Department issued a new regulation to curb “birth tourism.” Under that rule, U.S. consular officers must deny tourist visas to any applicant believed to be traveling primarily to give birth in America (seeking U.S. citizenship for their child). This move targeted a perceived loophole but did not change the constitutional provision itself. No direct executive or legislative action to revoke or limit the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was implemented during Trump’s first term.
2024 Campaign Promise to End Birthright Citizenship
Trump revived the issue of birthright citizenship as a centerpiece of his 2024 presidential campaign. In a May 2023 campaign video, he vowed that if elected again he would end automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and other non-citizens on his first day back in office. His campaign announced plans for an executive order to require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident in order for a newborn to receive American citizenship. This proposed Day-One executive order was framed as an effort to halt what Trump called a “magnet” for illegal immigration – he argued that the promise of U.S. citizenship for children incentivizes unauthorized border crossings. At the time of this pledge, legal scholars immediately noted that such an order would face significant court challenges, as the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment has for over a century conferred citizenship to virtually all born on U.S. soil (with very limited exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats). Despite the expected legal hurdles, Trump made ending birthright citizenship a formal campaign promise and part of his immigration platform heading into the 2024 election.
January 2025 Executive Order “Protecting American Citizenship”
After the 2024 election, upon returning to the White House, President Trump moved quickly to act on his pledge. On January 20, 2025, he signed Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which sought to fundamentally redefine birthright citizenship. The order officially declared that children born in the United States would not be recognized as U.S. citizens at birth unless at least one parent is an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident (green-card holder). In effect, the policy targets two categories of U.S.-born children born after the order’s effective date:
Those born to mothers who are undocumented (present in the U.S. unlawfully) when the child is born, if the father is also not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
Those born to mothers who are in the U.S. only on a temporary lawful status (such as on a tourist, student, or work visa) at the time of birth, if the father is not a citizen or permanent resident.
Children fitting either category would no longer be issued U.S. citizenship documents under the order. The executive order directed federal agencies not to issue passports, social security numbers, or other documentation acknowledging U.S. citizenship for such children. It provided a 30-day lead-in period and was set to apply only to babies born after February 19, 2025 (30 days from issuance). In announcing this policy, the administration argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment had been historically misinterpreted, and that the Amendment “has always excluded” from citizenship those born to people who are not legal residents or citizens. This reinterpretation, they contended, would restore the “true” intent of the 14th Amendment and prevent what Trump officials described as abuse of birthright citizenship. It marked the first time a U.S. president had formally tried to alter birthright citizenship by executive action, setting the stage for an immediate legal showdown.
Legal Challenges and Court Rulings (2025)
Protesters rally in support of birthright citizenship outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., as the justices hear a challenge to President Trump’s executive order, May 2025.
Trump’s order to restrict birthright citizenship was met with swift and widespread legal opposition. Immigrants’ rights groups, civil liberties organizations, and several state attorneys general filed lawsuits almost immediately, arguing that the executive order violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the first weeks of 2025, multiple federal courts issued preliminary injunctions to halt enforcement of the order while the cases proceeded. By its own terms, the policy had not yet taken effect (it was not to apply to births until late February 2025), and these court orders ensured that it remained on hold from the outset.
The legal battle quickly escalated to the appellate level. In late June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in procedurally – though not yet on the core constitutional question. In Trump v. CASA (2025), the Court’s conservative majority curtailed the use of nationwide injunctions that had been blocking the policy. The justices held that individual district judges generally cannot issue universal coast-to-coast injunctions beyond the parties before them. However, critically, the Supreme Court noted an exception: class-action lawsuits could still provide nationwide relief for all similarly situated individuals. The Court sent the cases back down for further proceedings under this guidance, without ruling on whether Trump’s birthright order itself was constitutional. (Notably, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor – writing for the three liberal justices – flatly condemned Trump’s order as “patently unconstitutional,” even though the majority did not reach that issue.)
Armed with the Supreme Court’s direction, plaintiffs quickly retooled their strategy. On July 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire agreed to certify a nationwide plaintiff class encompassing all U.S.-born children who would be affected by Trump’s order. Using the class-action mechanism, Judge LaPlante then issued a new preliminary injunction blocking the birthright citizenship order nationwide. He concluded that the challengers are likely to succeed on the merits, finding Trump’s policy almost certainly unconstitutional for depriving U.S.-born infants of citizenship rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The judge emphasized the irreparable harm of denying citizenship – “That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone… the greatest privilege that exists in the world,” he noted in his ruling. In practical terms, had the order not been enjoined, it could have meant thousands of newborns denied recognition as Americans; one estimate was that over 150,000 babies each year would lack citizenship under Trump’s directive if it were fully implemented.
The Trump administration immediately pushed back against the court’s actions. Judge LaPlante stayed his injunction for seven days to allow the government to appeal, and the Justice Department signaled it would swiftly seek relief from the First Circuit Court of Appeals. A White House spokesperson denounced the judge’s nationwide class injunction as “an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear order against universal relief,” accusing what they called “rogue district court judges” of undermining policies the president was elected to enact. Government attorneys argued that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had been misinterpreted for decades, and that Congress or the executive branch could lawfully exclude children of unauthorized or temporary visitors from citizenship. These arguments, however, failed to sway the lower courts. Every judge to consider the order so far – including those appointed by Republican presidents – has found the policy likely violates the Constitution’s clear command that “all persons born” in the U.S. (with very narrow exceptions) are citizens. The Biden-era Supreme Court precedent of Wong Kim Ark (1898) is repeatedly cited as binding authority that birthright citizenship applies regardless of parental status. In light of that, the emergent consensus in the courts has been that an executive order cannot override the Constitution or long-standing judicial precedent on this issue.
Current Status and Outlook
As of mid-2025, the Trump administration’s bid to alter birthright citizenship remains entirely stalled by the courts. The January 2025 executive order has never been put into effect due to the injunctions described above. The focus now shifts to higher courts: the Justice Department is pursuing appeals, and the matter is expected to fast-track back to the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive ruling. The Supreme Court will likely be called upon to decide the fundamental question of whether a president (or Congress) can reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to exclude U.S.-born children of certain non-citizen parents – or whether doing so requires a constitutional amendment. Until and unless such a decision comes, birthright citizenship remains the law of the land as before. All official actions taken to end or limit it (whether by executive order or other administrative means) have been blocked as unconstitutional by federal courts. In summary, since July 2024 there has been a clear pattern: Trump and his administration formally resurrected the idea of ending birthright citizenship and even issued an unprecedented executive order toward that goal, but robust legal challenges have (so far) prevented any change to the status quo. The fight over this issue is ongoing, with the ultimate outcome likely to hinge on pending court decisions, particularly at the Supreme Court level, in the months ahead.