Simple answer is no he did not eliminate birthright citizenship but he did pass two NEW executive orders today on 8/6/26 which affects birthright citizenship. What was the point of these executive orders you may ask? Well it helped limit who qualifies for automatic birthright citizenship by relying on existing constitutional exceptions.
Expanding Exceptions
The Trump administration argue that some children born in the US should not automatically receive citizenship if they fall into certain categories. Such as:
- Foreign Government Employees
- Alleged Enemy Alien
Birth Tourism
This is the second order which directs the Departments of State and Homeland Security to take stronger action against people who travel to the United States primarily to give birth so their child can gain citizenship.
This essentially includes increased scrutiny of visa applications and enforcement against business that facilitate birth tourism.
Why?
This is the famous question we always ask. Additionally, children love asking this simple question. So, what is the reason for this? Trump is taking this route as the Supreme Court recently rejected his broader effort to restrict birthright citizenship, reaffirming that the 14th amendment protects citizenship for people born on US soil.
Except of course for some of the ones we mentioned above.
In practical terms it has not been abolished or broadly limited today. Donald Trump is attempting to test the boundaries of those recognized exemptions and target birth tourism through executive action. These new executive orders are expected to be challenged in court almost immediately, and whether they ultimate survive will likely be decided by the federal courts.
Birthright Citizenship Thoughts
We have two different camps in this debate with specks of groups spread throughout the middle of the two camps. As usual.
The pro argument is that the 14th amendment was never intended to grant automatic citizenship to every person born on United States soil. Regardless of their parent’s legal status. They contend that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” allows for additional exceptions and that limiting these rights would discourage illegal immigration and birth tourism.
The con argument mainly fights for the fact that more than a century of Supreme court precedent has interpreted the 14th amendment to gran citizenship to nearly everyone born in the United States, regardless of their parent’s immigration status. They contend that changings this through executive decisions or actions rather than a constitutional amendment or congressional legislation violates the Constitution and creates uncertainty for millions of families.
What do I think? I’ll generally stick to fact here. Obviously people will abuse birthright citizenship for their benefit. I also think good policy is important and we need to address the issues with immigration in our country. A good middle ground may be analyzing immigrant children or these foreign babies with set guidelines to not have a broad paintbrush. To make things more personalized and logical.
For your last answer, the fight was lost to end birthright citizenship in June 30th, 2026 in Trump v. Barbara when the supreme court ruled 6-3 that children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegally here are still “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are therefore citizens under the 14th Amendment.