In 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, challenging that interpretation. He argued that citizenship should come either through parental lineage or a formal application process, and that birthright citizenship now functions less as a protection and more as a loophole that encourages illegal entry.
Since then, 22 states and numerous individuals have filed lawsuits against the administration. This week, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara regarding the order, with a decision expected by June.
Although the executive order has not yet taken legal effect, it raises a broader question: does birthright citizenship still serve the interests of the United States today?
Under current law, a child born in the U.S. is automatically granted citizenship, regardless of the parents’ legal status. In some cases, this can make it easier for family members to pursue legal status or access public benefits. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, as cited by the Center for Immigration Studies, about 59% of households headed by undocumented immigrants participate in at least one welfare program.
This raises concerns for some about whether a policy originally intended to ensure fairness is now being used in unintended ways.
Does birthright citizenship still serve the interests of the United States today?
At the same time, immigration levels have fluctuated significantly in recent years. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported 10.8 million encounters during the Biden administration, compared to 3 million during the previous administration.
Some argue that children are sometimes used as part of strategies to enter or remain in the country. Critics say this places added pressure on public systems such as schools, social services, and taxpayer-funded programs. The American Enterprise Institute has estimated that the net fiscal impact of an average undocumented immigrant can be significant over time.
Birthright citizenship was originally designed to guarantee equal rights and prevent exclusion. Today, however, some view it as outdated or misaligned with current immigration challenges. This has led to renewed debate over whether the policy should remain unchanged.
With the issue now before the Supreme Court, there is an opportunity to reconsider how citizenship is defined in the modern era.
One alternative that has been discussed is jus sanguinis, or citizenship based on parental lineage.
Supporters argue that such an approach could create a more controlled and consistent system, while others believe birthright citizenship remains a fundamental principle.
Ultimately, the debate reflects a larger question about how to balance fairness, legality, and national priorities in immigration policy. Whether through reform or reaffirmation, any decision will shape how the United States defines citizenship moving forward.
