Below is a news-style article addressing the question “Can Donald Trump End U.S. Birthright Citizenship? Explained,” based on the latest available information and legal context.
Can Donald Trump End U.S. Birthright Citizenship? Explained
May 16, 2025 | By Grok News Service
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas. The move, a cornerstone of Trump’s immigration agenda, has sparked intense legal battles and public debate, culminating in a Supreme Court hearing on May 15, 2025. But can Trump unilaterally end birthright citizenship, a principle enshrined in the U.S. Constitution for over 150 years? Here’s a breakdown of the issue, its legal foundation, and the challenges Trump faces.
What Is Birthright Citizenship?
Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (“right of the soil”), grants automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration or citizenship status. This principle is rooted in the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which 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.” The amendment was designed to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people after the Civil War, overturning the infamous 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that denied citizenship to African Americans.
The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark further solidified this principle, ruling that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents—legally barred from naturalization at the time—was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. The only exceptions to birthright citizenship are children of foreign diplomats with immunity, who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S..
Trump’s Executive Order and Rationale
Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day in office, directs federal agencies to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The administration argues that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, claiming they owe allegiance to foreign nations. Trump has called birthright citizenship “ridiculous,” falsely stating the U.S. is the only country with this policy—over 30 countries, including Canada and Mexico, have similar laws. He contends it incentivizes illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” where pregnant women enter the U.S. to give birth for citizenship benefits.
In a May 15, 2025, Truth Social post, Trump described the Supreme Court case as an “easy win,” arguing the 14th Amendment was meant only for freed slaves, not modern immigration contexts. Supporters, including some conservative scholars, echo this, claiming the amendment’s framers did not intend to include children of non-permanent residents.
Legal Challenges and Court Rulings
Trump’s order faced immediate pushback. Within days, four lawsuits were filed by coalitions of states, immigrant rights groups like the ACLU, and pregnant mothers, arguing the order violates the 14th Amendment. Federal judges in Washington, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire issued nationwide injunctions, blocking the order’s enforcement. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle called it “blatantly unconstitutional,” citing over a century of precedent. Appeals courts in San Francisco and Richmond upheld these injunctions, rejecting Trump’s requests to limit their scope.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on May 15, 2025, in three consolidated cases (Trump v. CASA, Inc., Trump v. Washington, Trump v. New Jersey). The focus was less on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship and more on whether lower courts overstepped by issuing nationwide injunctions. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, expressed skepticism about such broad judicial orders, while liberal justices like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor defended the 14th Amendment’s clear language. A ruling is expected by late June or early July 2025.
Can Trump End Birthright Citizenship?
Most legal scholars agree that Trump cannot end birthright citizenship via executive order. The 14th Amendment’s language is unambiguous, and the Wong Kim Ark precedent has stood for 127 years. Undocumented immigrants are subject to U.S. laws, making their children eligible for citizenship under the amendment’s “jurisdiction” clause. As former House Speaker Paul Ryan noted in 2018, “You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order”.
There are only two ways to alter birthright citizenship:
- Constitutional Amendment: This requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of state legislatures—a process that could take years and is politically unlikely. The Constitution has not been amended since 1992.
- Supreme Court Reinterpretation: Trump’s order appears designed to force the Court to revisit Wong Kim Ark. However, even with a conservative-leaning Court, overturning such a long-standing precedent is considered a “fringe view.” The Court’s liberal justices and some moderates, like Chief Justice John Roberts, may resist undermining a core constitutional principle.
Potential Consequences
If Trump’s order were upheld, it could:
- Create a “permanent subclass” of U.S.-born individuals without citizenship, denied rights like voting or access to benefits, potentially violating equal protection principles.
- Increase the undocumented population by 4.7 million by 2050, as U.S.-born children of immigrants would lack legal status.
- Disrupt citizenship verification, as birth certificates would no longer suffice, requiring parents to prove legal status.
- Exacerbate racial and ethnic tensions, as the policy would disproportionately affect communities of color.
Critics, including the ACLU, argue the order is “profoundly cruel” and repeats historical errors like the Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship based on race. Supporters, however, see it as a necessary deterrent to illegal immigration, aligning with Trump’s broader deportation and border security plans.
Public Sentiment and Political Context
Public opinion is divided. A January 2025 Emerson College poll suggested more Americans support Trump’s stance than oppose it, though many legal experts and advocacy groups, like the American Immigration Council, warn of its unconstitutionality and societal harm. Posts on X reflect this split, with some users praising Trump’s push to “fix” immigration, while others call it a doomed overreach, citing the 14th Amendment’s clarity.
The issue is part of Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda, including mass deportations and tariffs, which have dominated his second term’s early days. The Supreme Court’s decision could set a precedent for executive power and judicial oversight, especially regarding nationwide injunctions, which some conservative justices criticize.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine whether Trump’s order can proceed, at least partially, or remain blocked. If the Court upholds the injunctions, the order is likely dead unless Trump pursues a constitutional amendment—an uphill battle. If the Court narrows the injunctions, federal agencies could begin implementing the policy, though further litigation would follow. Legal experts predict the Court may avoid directly addressing birthright citizenship, focusing instead on the procedural issue of injunctions, leaving the 14th Amendment’s protections intact for now.
For immigrant families, the uncertainty is palpable. As Cody Wofsy of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project stated, “Birthright citizenship is guaranteed in our Constitution and is absolutely central to what America stands for.” The fight over this principle is not just legal but a defining debate about American identity and equality.