A Second Attempt: The Newest Round of Executive Orders

On August 6, 2026, President Trump signed two executive orders that aim to restrict birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship is the legal right to automatic citizenship based on the country where a person is born, which was established in the U.S. by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. 

The August executive orders come weeks after the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Barbara that the president’s previous January 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. That earlier directive, which sought to deny citizenship to future children born to parents without legal status, was struck down for violating the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The latest round marks Trump’s second attempt to limit the scope of birthright citizenship, a right that has endured since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment on July 9, 1868.

What do the New Executive Orders Entail?

One executive order expands citizenship restrictions on children born to foreign diplomatic officers working in embassies and international organizations. U.S. immigration law already outlines a special exception to birthright citizenship for the children of foreign diplomats giving birth. However, Trump’s executive orders extend this exclusion to the U.S.-born children of foreign government employees, embassy staff, and workers at international organizations who are exempt from U.S. laws. 

The Trump administration also seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children born to members of designated terrorist organizations as well as conception through surrogacy. Surrogacy is the practice of arranging for a woman to give birth to a baby for someone else. In this case, under the order, babies born to U.S.-based surrogates for foreign parents are not deemed American citizens. To carry out these measures, the decree also grants enforcement powers to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security.

The second order is designed to curb birth tourism. Birth tourism refers to the phenomenon in which foreign nationals travel to the U.S. on short-term visas specifically to give birth, thereby securing citizenship for their child. Section 4 of the second order similarly delegates implementation power to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Support, Opposition, and Potential Legal Challenges

Major civil rights groups responded immediately by condemning the August 6 executive orders as an unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a century-old nonpartisan organization committed to defending the Constitution, asserted that the new executive orders will “meet the same fate” as the January 2025 attempt, which was judged unconstitutional in Trump v. Barbara.

The ACLU later followed up on its condemnation by joining other civil rights groups in a motion to US District Judge Joseph LaPlante to block the executive orders. Judge LaPlante, a U.S. District Court judge for New Hampshire, was the first to rule Trump’s January 2025 executive order as unconstitutional. The July 2025 district ruling made its way up to the Supreme Court, eventually becoming Trump v. Barbara.

​In contrast, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has asserted that Trump’s actions tackling birth tourism fall within the President’s authority under Section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The provision grants the executive branch control over how non-citizens can enter or leave the country. Under Miller’s rationale, restricting foreign nationals who enter the U.S. to secure citizenship for a child is consistent with existing federal law. 

​As legal challenges move forward, federal courts will once again decide whether these executive orders can hold against longstanding Supreme Court precedent on birthright citizenship.