WASHINGTON, D.C. — August 7, 2026 —
U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a new attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, signing two executive orders targeting so-called “birth tourism” despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling affirming broad birthright citizenship protections.
Legal experts cited by Reuters say the administration is likely to face significant constitutional obstacles, particularly because the Supreme Court’s June ruling rejected Trump’s earlier effort to deny automatic citizenship to certain children born in the United States.
Trump Signs Two New Executive Orders
Trump signed the two orders on Thursday, August 6, as part of his broader immigration agenda.
One order directs federal agencies not to recognize the U.S. citizenship of a child if either parent is allegedly involved in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship.
A second order seeks to restrict visas for foreign nationals suspected of travelling to the United States for the purpose of giving birth so their children obtain U.S. citizenship. Reuters noted that the practical enforcement of the visa provision remains unclear because existing federal regulations already prohibit using temporary visas for the purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a newborn.
Trump has repeatedly criticized birthright citizenship, arguing that birth tourism has created businesses around obtaining U.S. citizenship for children born on American soil.
Supreme Court Already Rejected Trump’s Earlier Policy
The new orders come shortly after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against Trump's earlier attempt to restrict birthright citizenship.
In its June 30 decision in Trump v. Barbara, the court rejected the administration's attempt to deny citizenship to children born in the United States based on the immigration status of their parents.
The constitutional foundation of birthright citizenship is the 14th Amendment, which provides citizenship to people born or naturalized in the United States who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
That ruling creates a major legal problem for Trump's latest effort, according to several constitutional and immigration-law scholars.
University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost told Reuters that children born in the United States are citizens based on their birthplace and that unlawful conduct by their parents does not change the child's citizenship status.
Legal Experts Question the New Restrictions
The administration argues that its new orders are different from the policy rejected by the Supreme Court.
White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf defended the orders, saying they do not conflict with Supreme Court precedent.
However, other legal scholars disagree.
University of California, Berkeley law professor John Yoo said the attempt to deny citizenship based on a parent's fraudulent conduct does not appear to fit within the exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court.
Rachel Rosenbloom, an immigration law professor at Northeastern University, went further, saying she would be surprised if the new exclusions survived a legal challenge and describing them as clearly unconstitutional.
Trump Also Seeks to Expand Existing Exceptions
Trump's new directive goes beyond birth tourism. It also seeks to expand the historical exceptions to birthright citizenship.
Existing exceptions include children born to certain foreign diplomats and children born to foreign enemy forces occupying U.S. territory.
The administration's order seeks to expand those categories to include certain foreign government employees and people classified as foreign terrorists.
Legal scholars are divided over whether some of these changes could survive judicial review. Some believe a carefully defined diplomatic exception could potentially be permissible, while others warn that broader categories could create serious constitutional problems.
Concerns About Government Discretion
Another concern is how immigration officials would interpret and enforce the new rules.
UCLA immigration-law expert Hiroshi Motomura said some of the terms used in the orders are broad enough to give government officials considerable discretion when determining whether someone qualifies for a visa or admission to the United States.
Critics fear that such discretion could result in people being denied visas or subjected to additional scrutiny based on suspicion rather than clearly established facts.
The Bigger Constitutional Battle
The dispute ultimately centers on the meaning of the 14th Amendment and whether a president can create new limits on citizenship through executive action.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Supreme Court majority in June, emphasized the broad citizenship guarantee contained in the amendment.
Justice Samuel Alito, however, dissented, arguing that the court's interpretation would allow children of foreign nationals who temporarily travel to the United States specifically to give birth to automatically receive citizenship.
That disagreement illustrates the deep legal divide surrounding the issue.
For now, Trump's latest orders are expected to face legal challenges. While some provisions involving visas and existing exceptions could receive more nuanced consideration from the courts, legal experts cited by Reuters believe the central attempt to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children because of their parents' conduct faces a particularly difficult constitutional battle.
Source: Reuters, August 7, 2026.