President Donald Trump has issued a new executive order that seeks to revoke citizenship for certain Americans, a move that appears to test the Supreme Court's previous rulings on birthright citizenship.

This is not the first time Trump has attempted to alter birthright citizenship. Last year, an executive order aimed at stripping citizenship from many individuals born in the U.S. was later addressed by the Supreme Court. In the case of Trump v. Barbara (2026), the Court reaffirmed that all individuals born in the United States and subject to its laws are citizens. This principle had been established more than a century earlier in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

The 2026 Barbara decision invalidated Trump's earlier executive order, reportedly leading to his dissatisfaction. The new order, significantly narrower than the first, seems to be a direct response to that Supreme Court ruling.

Trump appears to be exploring the justices' limits regarding birthright citizenship. His previous order faced a constitutional challenge rooted in over a century of legal precedent. However, in the Barbara case, four justices voted to overturn at least some of that established precedent.

With the current order, Trump is testing whether a more limited approach might sway one of the justices who sided with the majority in Barbara, including two Republican appointees. If he can retain the support of the four dissenters and gain one additional vote, the new order could be upheld. This scenario could signal future attempts to erode the concept of birthright citizenship.

Scope of the New Executive Order

Trump's initial order, which was blocked in Barbara, aimed to revoke citizenship from individuals born in the U.S. to mothers who were undocumented or present in the U.S. temporarily. Such an order, if in effect, could have impacted prominent figures like former Vice President Kamala Harris.

The new order, titled “Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” is considerably more restricted. Some of the categories it targets are unclear in their real-world applicability. For instance, it seeks to strip citizenship from children born to two non-citizen parents if either parent is associated with a “designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.” This provision suggests that a child born on U.S. soil to a member of a terrorist organization might have their citizenship revoked.

Another provision targets children of foreign nationals employed by embassies or similar diplomatic entities who do not possess diplomatic immunity under U.S. law. The number of individuals potentially affected by this clause is likely small, given the limited number of such diplomatic positions.

The largest group potentially impacted by the new order consists of children whose parents intentionally arranged for the mother's presence in the U.S. for the birth, such as by purchasing a plane ticket. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2024 indicated that 9,576 individuals were born in the U.S. to residents of foreign countries out of approximately 3.6 million annual births. However, it remains uncertain how many of these births would be subject to the order, as it depends on the mother's intent in traveling to the U.S.

Constitutional Basis of Birthright Citizenship

The principle of birthright citizenship in the United States has historically been a settled matter of law. Judge John Coughenour, appointed by President Reagan, commented on the clarity of the issue when his court first blocked Trump's original order, stating he had never encountered a case with such clear-cut legal questions in his four decades on the bench.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This means that nearly everyone born in the U.S., irrespective of their parents' immigration status or actions, is considered a citizen, unless they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

As the Supreme Court reiterated in Barbara, individuals are within U.S. jurisdiction if they are “subject to American law.” The logic follows that if undocumented immigrants and their children were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, then arresting or deporting them would be illegal. Similarly, if members of foreign terrorist organizations were not subject to U.S. law, prosecuting them for acts committed in the U.S. would be unlawful.

The Supreme Court's 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark did recognize limited exceptions for individuals present in the U.S. but not subject to its laws. These include children of invading foreign armies and children of foreign ambassadors or diplomats who hold immunity from U.S. law. The Barbara decision further clarified that these exemptions stem from an historical English rule concerning lands not under the King's control and a legal