Birthright Citizenship in the United States: What to Know

WASHINGTON, 25 AUGUST 2026 —

U.S. Birthright Citizenship Battle Tests Global Norms as Trump Targets Loopholes

In August 2026, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders designed to curtail birthright citizenship through targeted measures, including restrictions on children of foreign diplomats and crackdowns on birth tourism. The move follows a failed 2025 attempt to end the practice entirely via executive action, which was blocked by courts and ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara in June 2026. That ruling reaffirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental immigration status.

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, enshrines birthright citizenship under its Citizenship Clause, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. The clause was intended to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to Black Americans. Subsequent rulings, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), reinforced the principle that children born in the U.S.—even to non-citizens—are citizens by birth. Exceptions exist for children of foreign diplomats and residents of American Samoa, who hold U.S. national status but not full citizenship rights.

The Trump administration’s new strategy focuses on two fronts. The first executive order limits birthright eligibility for children born to parents who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents, including foreign government employees and those deemed “alien enemies.” It also targets parents who engage in commercial transactions to secure citizenship for their children. The second order directs the Departments of Homeland Security and State to combat birth tourism by denying or revoking visas for pregnant foreigners suspected of traveling to the U.S. solely to give birth.

Birth tourism has become a flashpoint in the debate. While estimates vary, the Center for Immigration Studies claimed in 2020 that 33,000 births annually involved women on tourist visas, though the Niskanen Center disputed the figure as exaggerated. The U.S. State Department had already tightened visa rules in 2020 to curb the practice, particularly for B-category nonimmigrant visas.

Globally, the U.S. remains one of roughly 30 countries—mostly in the Americas, including Brazil, Canada, and Mexico—that grant birthright citizenship under jus soli (“right of soil”). Most African, Asian, and European nations instead rely on jus sanguinis (“right of blood”), where citizenship is inherited through descent. Ireland, for example, grants citizenship to individuals with at least one Irish-born parent, regardless of where they are born.

The U.S. naturalization process, by contrast, requires applicants to meet residency, language, and civic knowledge requirements. In fiscal year 2024, 818,500 people were naturalized, up from the decade-long average of 730,100 between 2010 and 2019. However, the Trump administration has prioritized denaturalization, targeting individuals accused of “illegally procuring” citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation. As of April 2026, the Department of Justice reported it was pursuing hundreds of denaturalization cases against foreign-born individuals.

Legal scholars overwhelmingly argue that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause leaves little room for reinterpretation. “Repealing birthright citizenship would create a self-perpetuating class excluded from social membership for generations,” said a constitutional law professor quoted in a June 2026 analysis. Critics, however, contend the clause’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was never intended to apply to temporary residents or undocumented immigrants.

The political divide over birthright citizenship has widened in recent decades, intensifying under Trump’s second term. His administration has paired the executive orders with broader immigration restrictions, including limits on asylum and legal pathways. Polling in April 2026 suggested growing public skepticism toward birthright citizenship, though the survey details were not disclosed.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in Trump v. Barbara marked a turning point, narrowing the scope of nationwide injunctions against Trump’s policies while reaffirming birthright citizenship’s constitutional basis. The ruling followed oral arguments in April 2026, where challengers argued that the practice is deeply embedded in American law and history.

For Malaysia and the broader Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. debate carries symbolic and practical weight. Malaysia, like many Asian nations, adheres to jus sanguinis, though it grants citizenship to children born to Malaysian mothers abroad under certain conditions. The U.S. policy shift could influence global discussions on migration governance, particularly in countries grappling with rising birth tourism and unauthorized immigration.

Stakeholders remain divided. Immigration advocacy groups condemn the executive orders as unconstitutional and discriminatory, while conservative legal scholars argue they align with originalist interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Department of Justice has framed its denaturalization efforts as a crackdown on fraud, but critics warn they risk creating a climate of fear among immigrant communities.

Looking ahead, the Trump administration’s legal strategy faces uncertain prospects. While the Supreme Court has rebuffed broad challenges, the new executive orders may face narrower legal tests. Meanwhile, the global norm of birthright citizenship remains intact—except in the U.S., where its future now hinges on narrower, more targeted battles.