Trump signs orders targeting birth tourism, restricting birthright citizenship amid legal questions

President Trump signed two executive orders Thursday aimed at curtailing birth tourism and narrowing birthright citizenship, moves that immediately drew skepticism from immigration law scholars who questioned whether the administration could actually enforce them or whether courts would allow them to stand.

The orders represent Trump's latest attempt to reshape citizenship policy after the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all people born on American soil regardless of their parents' legal status. Trump called that decision "very unfortunate," arguing the framers had intended the birthright citizenship clause only for children of formerly enslaved people after the Civil War. "What's happening now? People are building businesses around it," he said in the Oval Office. "Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That's not the way it was supposed to work. It's a disgrace."

One order expands the categories of children deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship beyond the single exception long recognized in law: children born to foreign diplomats, who fall outside U.S. jurisdiction. The new order adds babies born to other foreign government personnel, children whose parents belong to designated terrorist organizations, and infants born in U.S. territories where federal law does not confer citizenship. It also targets children whose parents engaged in what the order calls a "commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship."

The second order purports to ban birth tourism outright—the practice of foreign nationals entering the country on visitor visas specifically to give birth and secure citizenship for their child. Stephen Miller, the White House chief of staff for policy, called this order "especially historic" and described it as a sweeping prohibition. Miller framed the issue in stark terms: people come claiming they want to visit Disneyland or national parks, he said, but their actual purpose is to have a child who becomes an automatic citizen, then leave the country while retaining access to welfare benefits and voting rights.

Yet Kevin Johnson, an immigration law professor at UC Davis, raised immediate doubts about whether any of this would work in practice. The birth tourism ban, he noted, hinges on proving intent—determining whether someone came to the U.S. specifically to give birth rather than for other reasons. "How would one enforce the birth tourism ban absent an admission?" Johnson asked. He pointed out that someone coming for better medical care during pregnancy could arguably fall under the definition, and that "discerning intent of a parent is challenging and open to abuse." Both orders, he suggested, "read like political statements" more than enforceable policy.

Ernesto Sagás, a politics and immigration policy expert at Colorado State University, added another layer of skepticism: birth tourism is already illegal under existing federal law. The new order, he implied, may simply be restating prohibitions already on the books rather than creating meaningful new enforcement mechanisms. The orders assign enforcement responsibility to the secretaries of State and Homeland Security, but neither expert offered confidence that these agencies could practically distinguish between tourists and birth tourists, or that courts would accept such distinctions.

Both orders will almost certainly face legal challenges. Immigration law experts expect that if the administration attempts to enforce them, courts will scrutinize whether the executive branch has the authority to redefine birthright citizenship or to create new enforcement mechanisms for conduct already covered by statute. The Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause may itself constrain how far these orders can reach. What remains unclear is whether the administration's intent is to establish workable policy or to stake out a political position ahead of further legal battles over who belongs as a citizen in America.