U.S. President Donald Trump has defended his administration’s effort to end birthright citizenship, arguing that the constitutional principle was originally established to protect the children of enslaved people, not, as he claimed, to benefit “wealthy foreigners” who travel to the United States to give birth.
In an interview with Politico, Trump defended the executive order he signed on his first day back in office in January 2025, which sought to halt the automatic granting of citizenship to children born on U.S. soil. He warned that it would be “devastating” if the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the administration.
According to Trump, the legal foundation of birthright citizenship “had everything to do with the babies of slaves,” tracing its origins to the post–Civil War era.
“That case was not meant for some rich person coming from another country … and all of a sudden their whole family becomes United States citizens,” he said, adding that he believed the courts “understand it, too.”
Historical and Legal Context
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The provision was designed to secure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people and others born on U.S. territory.
Trump’s executive order, announced on January 20, 2025, declared that babies born in the U.S. more than 30 days after his inauguration would no longer automatically qualify for citizenship. The move triggered multiple legal challenges, and several federal courts initially blocked the policy’s enforcement.
However, in June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts lacked the authority to issue nationwide injunctions halting the implementation of executive actions. The decision effectively opened the door for the justices to determine whether Trump’s order is constitutional.
Economic and Policy Arguments
Trump has continued to justify his position on economic grounds, saying the U.S. “cannot afford to house tens of millions of people.” Supporters of the policy argue that ending birthright citizenship would curb so-called “birth tourism” and reduce the strain on social services, while critics contend that the move undermines a core constitutional guarantee and could render thousands of children stateless.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments on the issue in the coming months, a decision that could reshape U.S. immigration policy and redefine the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
