By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
On August 6, 2026 Trump issued two new executive orders sure to send birthright citizenship back to the Supreme Court. This from his intentionally ending the practice by Executive Order 14160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” White House, January 20, 2025. The executive order challenged the prevailing over 50-year-plus distortion of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, The words birthright, baby, or immigration weren’t in the amendment, then, nor now. Trump ended birthright citizenship in the United States for children of unauthorized immigrants as well as immigrants legally but temporarily present in the U.S., such as those on student, work, or tourist visas. On June 30, 2026, his order was shockingly declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
With this distortion the 14th Amendment was “repurposed,” as Justice Clarence Thomas called it, from giving ex-slaves citizenship after the Civil War to birth citizenship for illegals invading America who, while present, deliver a baby who gains citizenship enabling that child to sponsor them for citizenship later. The 13th amendment made ex—slaves free, the 14th extended ex-slaves citizenship and the 15th, the right to vote. These Reconstruction Era amendments cannot be seen separately and have nothing to do with immigration. Those receiving it then were ex-slaves. They dealt almost entirely with our black population. In the Court’s recent decision we could not get further from original intent or as constitutionally written. It’s a massive perversion.
On August 6, 2026, Trump issued Executive Order “Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” to essentially move back to original intent and at least limit the privilege, as once it was before 1898. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), itself a distortion, affirmed that children born in the U.S. are citizens unless they fall under certain exceptions. These exceptions were identified in Trump’s recent EO’s as: “children of alien enemies, members of designated foreign terrorist organization, or specifically designated global terrorists, children of certain foreign government employees, diplomats, embassy, consular staff with immunity, children whose parents engage in commercial transaction to obtain citizenship, explicitly including birth tourism packages or paid surrogacy arrangements aimed at securing a U.S. birth, children born in certain U.S. territories where federal statute does not already confer citizenship, agencies are directed not to issue or recognize citizenship documents for people in these categories when neither parent is a U.S. citizen (White House, Executive Orders, August 6. 2026). The Deep State and far left Democrats want no exceptions—anyone birthed in the U.S.—even for one day.
We are optimistic that the Supreme Court will switch this vote as they have previously supported many of these “exceptions” in the past. Anticipate many lawsuits here but it will end up in the Supreme Court who will have a second chance to regain the confidence of the American public after their last ruling on birth citizenship, especially Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Trump's second August 6, 2026, Executive Order titled, “Ending Birth Tourism,” is “entirely different. It uses the president's existing statutory authority over visas and admission to the United States.” It directs the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to “deny visas, revoke travel authorization, bar entry, and remove people who come or arrange for others to come for the primary purpose of giving birth to obtain citizenship for their child (Ibid.).
In either executive order the Trump administration “is not claiming the power to overrule the Supreme Court. It is arguing that these narrow categories fit inside the historical exception the court itself recognized.” (X22 Report, Ep. 3966b, August 9, 2026, 44:43). But he IS CLAIMING CLARITY on their statement in Trump V. Barbara, that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends the privilege of citizenship to children born to parents in the United States “for whom no extraterritorial fiction applie[s].” What does that mean? This means someone is fully considered to be in the place where they physically are, rather than being treated as if they are still on foreign soil,” which they should be until they meet the qualifications of citizenship.
This opens a can of worms. So you are a citizen of any country you visit, at least for a time, because that is where you presently are? If so, the Supreme Court opened the doors to every person in the world who could get to America, and you are recognized as a citizen because you are here. Insane!! The visa entry restrictions on birth tourism are the part least likely to be seen as a direct challenge to the Court's constitutional holding.
Trump is going to operate within the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The ruling left intact the traditional narrow historical exceptions, mainly children of foreign diplomats with immunity and children of invading enemy forces, where “extraterritorial fiction” applies, so they're not considered fully under U.S. jurisdiction” (Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump V. Barbara, 609 U.S. _, 146 S. Ct. 2438, 2449 (2026). Trump will likely get his win.
In Trump v. Barbara, Chief Justice John Roberts held that “children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause” (Ibid.). He did not explain how it is possible to be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States if you are not first a citizen and are admittedly unlawfully in the United States. Ex-slaves were life-long residents and lawfully in the United States so undisputedly “subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States thus once freed could get citizenship. Illegals came from somewhere in which they were subject to a jurisdiction and THAT WAS NOT IN THE United States. Worse, their kid can’t have the jurisdiction not possessed by either parent.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org. Column #885.
Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.