Trump’s Executive Order 14160: National Identity and Birthright Citizenship
Since June 8 of 1866, the Constitution has stated clearly, “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”. This is a section of the 14th Amendment, the citizenship clause. Since 1898, thanks to Wong Kim Ark (Wong Kim Ark v. United States), it has been affirmed to guarantee citizenship not just to the children of citizens, but to all people born or naturalized on U.S. soil. This interpretation was so strongly felt that it was written directly into an act: the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This act helped to determine who could enter the United States, stay as a resident, and who could become a citizen. It provides the framework for how birthright citizenship is applied. This was the concrete law of birthright citizenship, until January 20, 2025, when Trump stepped into office for his second term. Arguably, as soon as he stepped into office, he began to attack the existing legislation, issuing Executive Order 14160 the day he was sworn in. To summarize, this order said that only children of American citizens or of individuals with green cards would have birthright citizenship. This excludes children of individuals with work visas, undocumented individuals, and visitors. "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen," President Trump elaborated to the public. After approximately 160 years of a constant flow of immigrants and no challenges to the act, the Supreme Court has now been forced to question what it means to be a U.S. citizen. The “subject to the jurisdiction” portion of the 14th amendment that was initially interpreted to include “all persons born” in the United States, has been declared moot by the president. However, the Supreme Court has good reason to leave the policy as is. It can be argued that the administration’s logic for changing the existing legislation is groundless due to differences in legal definitions of immigrant status in the past.
Wong Kim Ark was born in the U.S. on Sacramento Street in San Francisco, California. His parents were legal residents, but due to race-based legislation such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, they were unable to fully become citizens. They moved back to China when Wong Kim was an adult. When he was 21 years old, he traveled to China to see them. However, upon returning home, he was detained—denied entry to his own country. With the 14th Amendment being in place and him being American-born, it was finally determined in the landmark Supreme Court Case Wong Kim Ark v. United States that all people born on U.S. soil are automatically U.S. citizens, despite the status of their parents. 128 years later, following Trump’s "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" Executive Order, the Supreme Court has been forced to bring the issue back into debate. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been crucial in efforts to impede and block the executive order. The ACLU is a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to protecting the constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens. They have been defending these rights for roughly 100 years.
On the same day the order was signed, one of the first complaints was filed with the First Circuit Court of Appeals: New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support (NHICS) v. Trump. A preliminary injunction was eventually granted to the plaintiff in this case in federal court. This meant that only the plaintiffs of this case would get birthright citizenship once the executive orders took effect. Similarly, on January 21, CASA v. Trump was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. A nationwide preliminary injunction was granted in this case, and it was moved up to the Supreme Court. Finally, on June 27, 2025, months after February 20, 2025, when the order took effect, the Supreme Court informed the CASA v. Trump's plaintiffs that the preliminary injunction could not be nationwide and only applied to them. The only way to get a “universal” or nationwide injunction was if they filed a class action lawsuit. As soon as the ACLU learned how to block the executive order nationwide, they did so on the same day, June 27, by filing a class action lawsuit. American Civil Liberty Unions from states all over united in a class action lawsuit against Trump’s executive order in Barbara v. Trump. Barbara v. Trump asks the Supreme Court if they believe it is within the president’s powers (without congressional approval) to end birthright citizenship.
Finally, on April 1, 2026, both sides presented their arguments to the Supreme Court. Trump's executive order will be retroactive if it is unblocked—meaning that all babies born after its original start date (February 20, 2025) will go back to being stateless if the Trump Administration wins the fight. However, upon examination, their argument appears unsupported in several examples. For one thing, birthright citizenship has been a long-standing cornerstone of the United States legal system. The Trump Administration argues that Wong Kim Ark v. The United States only applies to domiciled residents, or residents who have a home and are staying in the U.S. for a long period of time. However, this was just one legal case that affirmed the 14th Amendment as a protection of birthright citizenship, and in the 14th Amendment, it applies to all individuals born on United States soil. Furthermore, D. John Sauer (lawyer on behalf of the president) argues that the 14th Amendment couldn’t have been intended to include children of undocumented immigrants because the category didn’t exist at that time. However, to combat this claim, Justice Amy Coney Barrett notes that in 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was written), there were “illegally imported slaves” in the Union, but their children were considered to be U.S. citizens despite their status of illegality. The administration further argues that citizenship should only be possible for the children of "domiciled" (permanently residing) individuals. However, the other side argues that this category didn’t exist back then, so it's unlikely that the correct interpretation is that complex. The court briefly discussed birth tourism, where D. John Sauer argued that it's a “new world” where “eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a U.S. citizen.” However, this comment is contradictory to other actions of the Trump Administration. Trump claims to want to protect “the meaning and value of American citizenship" through preventing actions like birth tourism that enable the rich, while he also talks of creating a Trump Gold Card Program. A program like this would accelerate the process of gaining U.S. citizenship for those who can pay millions. While in 2025 an estimated 20,000-33,000 people were benefiting from birthright citizenship annually, approximately 250,000 people have joined the waitlist for Trump’s Gold Card Program as of February 26, 2025, according to the U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Nonetheless, the ruling for Barbara v. Trump is predicted to come out around late June or early July of 2026, when we will know what the future of birthright citizenship is.
In conclusion, Trump’s Executive Order 14160 is unnecessary, as there is already a significant amount of legislation that has interpreted the 14th Amendment and determined the law surrounding birthright citizenship. Not only has it been a part of our legislation for over a century, but it has shaped our national identity. Up until this point, the United States has been the country where anyone can make a life for themselves and for their posterity. Removing birthright citizenship for almost all groups would prevent roughly 250,000 children a year from gaining citizenship, completely transforming U.S. demographics. What will the United States look like without birthright citizenship?
Bibliography
American Civil Liberties Union. 2025. “American Civil Liberties Union.” American Civil Liberties Union. American Civil Liberties Union. 2025. https://www.aclu.org/.
“Analyzing the Arguments as Supreme Court Hears Birthright Citizenship Case.” 2026. PBS News. April 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/analyzing-the-arguments-as-supreme-court-hears-birthright-citizenship-case.
“Birth Tourism: Facts and Recommendations.” n.d. CIS.org. Accessed April 12, 2026. https://cis.org/CIS/Birth-Tourism-Facts-and-Recommendations.
Just Security. 2025. “Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions.” Just Security. February 10, 2025. https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/.
LEWIS, RAY. 2025. “250k People Waiting for $5 Million ‘Gold Card’ Visa, Commerce Secretary Says.” WBMA. February 27, 2025. https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/commerce-secretary-says-250k-people-waiting-for-5-million-gold-card-visa.
National Constitution Center. n.d. “United States v. Wong Kim Ark | the National Constitution Center.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.org. Accessed April 12, 2026. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898.
“The Trump Gold Card.” 2026. Trumpcard.gov. 2026. https://www.trumpcard.gov/.
“Wong Kim Ark’s Legacy Lives on with Us.” 2025. Asianlawcaucus.org. 2025. https://www.asianlawcaucus.org/news-resources/news/wong-kim-arks-legacy-birthright-citizenship.