On January 20, 2025, the day of his inauguration, Donald J. Trump, the 47th president of the United States of America, signed a slew of executive orders. The executive order that perhaps caught the most media attention, however, was titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”. This head-spinning executive order has been viewed by some observers as a blatant attempt to reverse what was a universally accepted, and undeniable part of the Constitution of the United States – birthright citizenship. Trump has weaponized the executive order to further his border-closing immigration agenda. The title of the executive order, utilizing the two words meaning and value, adds to Trump’s increasingly isolationist attitude toward immigrants seeking asylum in the US. The message is clear; being born on American soil, according to this executive order, does not automatically guarantee American citizenship.
The purpose of this executive order was described in Section 1.0:
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.”
The document goes on to explain that the 14th Amendment never meant to automatically give citizenship to anyone who is born in the U.S., arguing that certain people born in the U.S. don’t fall under the “jurisdiction thereof” clause of the amendment, and as a result, don’t qualify to become citizens just because they were born in the United States. These individuals are described very specifically in the same section of the order:
“Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
Trump, with the simple stroke of his sharpie, intends to reverse a centuries-old section of our constitution. To understand this executive order, one must first know a little about the original writing of the 14th Amendment and the early legal cases surrounding it. To understand this executive order, one must first go back to the original writing of the 14th Amendment and early legal cases surrounding the amendment.
It begins with the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, which was tried in front of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1857. The Dred Scott decision ultimately declared that an enslaved person’s birth in a free state did not entitle that person to freedom, because that individual was property and not a citizen. Since Dred Scott was a slave and not a citizen, he did not receive equal rights and protections under the law. This has gone down in America as one of the most unjust and infamous Supreme Court decisions. The 14th Amendment, however, would later guarantee that any person born on American soil, including former slaves, has the right to U.S. citizenship.
The 14th Amendment was also used in the case of Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. in 1898. The catalyst of this case was the Chinese Exclusion Act, which denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants for a 10-year period. Wong Kim Ark was a 1st generation American citizen. His parents were Chinese immigrants who, at the time, resided in the United States. When Wong Kim Ark was 21, he went to China to visit his parents, who had moved back to their home country after living in the U.S. for 2 decades. Upon his return to the United States, he was denied entry with the authorities claiming that he was not a U.S. citizen. This case was brought in front of the Supreme Court and ended in a landmark decision that reinforced the idea of birthright citizenship. The majority decision was in favor of Kim. It was affirmed that the 14th Amendment indeed qualified him as a United States citizen, as a result of his birth in the United States, along with the fact that he was not employed by the Chinese government. The new Trump executive order on birthright citizenship aims to upend this long-accepted legal precedent.
The Trump administration’s main argument hinges on the ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in the Constitution’s statement. The legal loophole is based on Trump’s idea that children born to illegal immigrants, or individuals in the US with visas temporarily, are not technically subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Since these people are allegedly not under the jurisdiction of the US, they cannot be considered citizens. The executive order was intended to go into effect on February 19, 2025, and would not apply to anyone born before that date. There has been enormous legal pushback since the release of this controversial executive order.
To date, according to Gene Johnson and Mike Catalini from the Associated Press, a total of 22 states have filed suit to stop the executive order. On January 23, 2025, 3 days after this executive order was issued, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenor from Seattle granted a request by attorneys from Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington to temporarily halt the executive order for 14 days. Judge Coughenor described the executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional.” Another federal judge from the District Court of Maryland has also blocked Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship. According to Judge Deborah Boardman, who made the announcement on February 6, 2025, “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country.” The ruling has put a permanent block on the executive order until the legal process is completed, which many legal experts believe may take months to years.
Meanwhile, several Senate Republicans in support of this new executive order, are playing their part in this war on birthright citizenship. According to Peter Pinedo from Fox News, a new bill, entitled The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025, aims to put an end to the automatic granting of citizenship to children born on American soil. The bill was introduced to the Senate on January 31st, 2025 by Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Katie Britt of Alabama, and Ted Cruz of Texas. The senators claim this would put an end to “illegal aliens” or people temporarily here on a visa assuming their children born in the U.S. will become citizens through birth. In addition, the senators believe this new bill would put an end to “birth tourism,” which is the act of wealthy foreign nationals coming to the U.S. temporarily to have their children in the U.S. for automatic citizenship. Lindsey Graham was quoted as saying, “I also appreciate President Trump’s executive order to address birthright citizenship. It is time for the United States to align itself with the rest of the world and restrict this practice once and for all.” The likelihood of this bill getting passed is extremely low given the lack of Democratic support. However, the bill itself helps to further normalize the formerly unpopular argument against birthright citizenship for many Americans.
Most experts appear to believe Trump’s war on birthright citizenship will be a huge legal uphill battle. There has already been significant legal blowback just weeks after this executive order. Yet still, the question remains: what is Trump’s endgame with this executive order? Some speculate he may want to use it merely as a deterrent to immigrants seeking asylum in the U.S., effectively telling those people birthright citizenship may be in danger in the future. Or is Trump banking on the legal process to lead its way to the Supreme Court? After all, he was the architect of the current conservative court that has a 6-3 majority. Does Trump believe his conservative judges may interpret the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States the same way that he does? The future appears uncertain, but what is guaranteed is a legal fight for the ages.
