Fact Check: "Citizenship may now depend on your state of birth."
What We Know
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” This order claims that the Fourteenth Amendment has not historically granted citizenship to everyone born in the United States. Instead, it specifies that citizenship is only conferred to those born in the U.S. who are also “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The executive order outlines two specific circumstances where a child born in the U.S. would not be considered “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”: (1) if the mother was unlawfully present in the country and the father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident, and (2) if the mother's presence was lawful but temporary, and the father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth (source-1).
If upheld, this executive order would effectively end the practice of granting birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and those temporarily in the U.S. This is significant given that approximately 250,000 children born to illegal immigrant parents and nearly 500,000 born to temporary visitors have occurred in recent years (source-1). The order marks a departure from over 125 years of precedent established by the Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, with very limited exceptions (source-1).
Analysis
The claim that "citizenship may now depend on your state of birth" is rooted in the implications of President Trump's executive order. The order suggests a potential shift in how citizenship is determined, particularly for children born to non-citizen parents. However, it is essential to note that the executive order does not change the law immediately; it requires further legal challenges and interpretations by the courts to take effect (source-4).
The reliability of the sources discussing this executive order varies. The executive order itself is a primary source but is subject to interpretation and legal scrutiny. The analysis by legal scholars, such as Brian Kam, provides context and historical background, highlighting the tension between the executive order and established judicial precedent (source-1). The New York Times and ABC News provide additional commentary on the potential implications of the order, noting that it may face significant legal challenges (source-3, source-4).
While the executive order indicates a shift in policy, it does not yet have the force of law until upheld by the courts. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment remains a critical factor in determining the future of birthright citizenship (source-1, source-3).
Conclusion
The verdict is Partially True. While President Trump's executive order suggests that citizenship may depend on the circumstances of birth, including the state of birth, it has not yet been enacted as law and faces significant legal challenges. The existing legal framework, established by the Supreme Court, still supports the principle of birthright citizenship. Therefore, while the claim reflects a potential future change, it does not currently represent the legal reality.
