Former President Donald Trump (R) announced an executive order this month aimed at limiting birthright citizenship to curb birth tourism [1, 2].
The move targets the 14th Amendment's citizenship provision, which has historically granted citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. If successful, the order would fundamentally alter the legal status of children born to non-citizens, potentially impacting thousands of families and the broader immigration system [2, 3].
Trump said the order is necessary to reduce illegal immigration and its political impact [3, 4]. He said the need to end birth tourism, where individuals travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can acquire citizenship, was a primary driver [1, 4].
However, legal experts expressed doubt regarding the order's viability. Experts said to Al Jazeera English that the measure is not likely to succeed [3]. This skepticism follows a series of legal challenges earlier this year.
On April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the bid to limit birthright citizenship [5]. At that time, the Associated Press reported that the court seemed poised to reject the restrictions [5].
While the court later acted in a related legal fight on April 5, 2026, that action focused on the power of federal judges [6]. The court restricted the ability of judges to grant broad legal relief in cases, but this did not explicitly validate the core of the birthright citizenship order [6].
Critics of the order argue that the 14th Amendment is clear and cannot be overridden by executive action. Supporters of the measure argue that the provision was never intended to cover those in the country illegally, or those visiting specifically for the purpose of obtaining citizenship [2, 4].
“Legal experts tell Al Jazeera’s ‘This is America’ it’s not likely.”
This executive order represents a direct challenge to a century of constitutional interpretation regarding the 14th Amendment. While the administration is leveraging executive power to redefine citizenship eligibility, the judicial precedent suggests that such a change would likely require a constitutional amendment rather than a presidential order. The ongoing conflict highlights a deeper legal battle over the limits of executive authority versus established constitutional rights.
