Trump’s uphill battle to rewrite birthright citizenship

The United States is among a limited group of countries that grant automatic citizenship to individuals born on its soil — a policy rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868. This constitutional guarantee, known as jus soli or “right of the soil,” provides citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” While widely accepted for over 150 years, this principle has come under increasing political scrutiny, especially from critics who argue it incentivizes unauthorized immigration.

Efforts to challenge birthright citizenship intensified under former President Donald Trump. As an article by the Council on Foreign Relations recalls, Trump signed an executive order on his first day of his second term seeking to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, aiming to exclude children born to undocumented immigrants or those with only temporary legal status. That move has sparked a significant legal battle, with the Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral arguments on May 15, 2025, in a consolidated case that could affect the citizenship rights of millions.

There are few exceptions to the birthright rule: children born to foreign diplomats and those born in American Samoa, who are classified as US nationals rather than citizens. The broader framework of US citizenship law also includes jus sanguinis — or “right of blood” — which confers citizenship to children born abroad to American parents.

The origins of birthright citizenship are deeply tied to the country’s post-Civil War efforts to ensure equal rights. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed in part to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that Black individuals, whether enslaved or free, were not US citizens. In 1898, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle of birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ruling that children born on US soil to non-citizen parents were entitled to citizenship. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 later extended this right to all Native Americans.

The naturalization process, by contrast, is a separate pathway through which noncitizens can apply for citizenship after meeting criteria such as residency, language proficiency, and knowledge of US history and government.

In recent decades, opposition to birthright citizenship has grown, particularly among conservative political groups. Critics claim that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment has been misinterpreted and that it was never meant to apply to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary residents. Some also argue that the policy encourages "birth tourism," where foreign nationals travel to the US to give birth, thereby securing citizenship for their child.

In response to such concerns, the US State Department in 2020 revised regulations related to tourist visas in an effort to curb birth tourism. That year, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that approximately 33,000 births annually were tied to women traveling to the US on tourist visas specifically to give birth.

Public opinion on the issue remains divided. According to a January 2025 poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 51% of Americans said they “somewhat or strongly oppose” changing the Constitution to end automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. Meanwhile, 28% expressed support for such a change.

On a global scale, the United States is one of just thirty-eight countries that still uphold jus soli citizenship. Most of these nations are in the Americas, including Canada, Brazil, and Mexico. By contrast, many countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa primarily use jus sanguinis as the foundation for determining citizenship. For example, Ireland allows individuals to claim citizenship through direct descent even if their parents were not born in the country.

Despite Trump’s executive actions, it is important to note that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally revoke birthright citizenship. Repealing or amending a constitutional provision like the Fourteenth Amendment would require a formal constitutional amendment process. This involves the approval of two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, followed by ratification from at least thirty-eight of the fifty US states — a daunting and historically rare process. The most recent amendment to the Constitution, the Twenty-Seventh, was ratified in 1992, more than two centuries after it was initially proposed.

While Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship has elevated the debate to the nation’s highest court, changing the legal foundation of US citizenship would require a sweeping political and constitutional shift. The outcome of the pending Supreme Court case could redefine the rights of millions, but any permanent change would need far broader political consensus.

By Nazrin Sadigova