(VIRGINIA, U.S.) — Rep. John McGuire introduced the Birthright Citizenship Clarification Act of 2026 on July 9, 2026, seeking to codify President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 after the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not end birthright citizenship through executive action alone.

McGuire, a Republican representing Virginia’s 5th Congressional District, introduced the bill less than two weeks after the Supreme Court’s June 30, 2026, ruling in Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365. The legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to narrow the circumstances in which a child born in the United States receives automatic citizenship.

“American citizenship is a privilege, and an honor that must be protected. For too long, foreign nationals have exploited the process of birthright citizenship through loopholes like birth tourism, devaluing what it means to be an American. My Birthright Citizenship Clarification Act of 2026 safeguards the privilege of being a citizen of our great nation,” McGuire said July 9.

Free toolSubstantial Presence Test Calculator

The measure follows a Supreme Court opinion that rejected the administration’s attempt to change birthright citizenship through Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” President Trump issued the order on January 20, 2025.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, “The Citizenship Clause must be understood in light of its historical context. a child born on American soil and subject to American law was made an American citizen.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the executive order was unconstitutional as an executive action. In a concurrence issued June 30, however, Kavanaugh suggested that Congress might have authority to define the scope of the Citizenship Clause through legislation, a position that Republican lawmakers are now seeking to test.

The bill would redefine the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment. Children born to parents who are unlawfully present or temporarily present in the United States would fall outside the bill’s proposed definition.

The temporary categories identified in the legislation include tourists, students and temporary workers. The proposal would also reach children born to parents holding temporary visas such as F-1, H-1B and B-1/B-2 visas, as well as children born to undocumented parents.

Under the proposed statutory language, a person would not be considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction if the person’s parents owed primary allegiance to a foreign power and were not permanent residents. The bill seeks to mirror the language and approach of Executive Order 14160 while placing the change in federal immigration law.

The proposal maintains exceptions involving children of foreign sovereigns, children of foreign public ships and children born to hostile occupiers. Those exceptions reflect long-standing categories recognized in discussions of the Citizenship Clause.

Most versions of the legislation state that the changes would not affect the citizenship of people born before the date of enactment. The provision would make the measure prospective rather than retroactive, leaving the citizenship of people born earlier outside its reach.

Zach Kahler, a USCIS spokesman, addressed the administration’s broader vetting efforts on July 6. He said the administration “prioritizes the safety of the American people by more thoroughly screening and vetting all aliens.”

Kahler also said that the status of children born in the United States does not automatically confer benefits on their parents. His comments came as the administration continued to emphasize screening, vetting and the immigration status of parents in its wider policy agenda.

The proposed legislation would not itself make a child’s birth in the United States irrelevant. It would establish a new statutory rule for determining whether the child’s parents had the relationship to the country required by the bill’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Birthright citizenship has rested for more than 125 years on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In 1898, the court held that birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship regardless of a child’s parental status.

The Birthright Citizenship Clarification Act directly challenges that precedent. Its sponsors argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children whose parents owe primary allegiance to another country and lack permanent resident status.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara did not allow the executive branch to impose that interpretation through an executive order. The decision instead left open the legislative question raised by Kavanaugh’s concurrence, giving congressional proponents a route to pursue the same policy through an act of Congress.

Passage of the bill would almost certainly produce another constitutional dispute over the relationship between federal statutes and the 14th Amendment. A later Supreme Court case would likely determine whether Congress could restrict birthright citizenship through legislation or whether the Citizenship Clause prevents that change.

The proposed restrictions would reach families with different immigration circumstances. A child born to a parent who entered the country unlawfully could be denied automatic citizenship under the bill. The same result could apply when both parents were in the United States temporarily as students, tourists or temporary workers.

The H-1B category would be among the temporary visa classifications affected by the proposal. Children born to H-1B workers would face the same citizenship question as children born to people in the other temporary categories identified in the bill.

A child’s citizenship status can also affect the legal position of the family. Kahler’s statement emphasized that a U.S.-born child’s status does not automatically grant immigration benefits to the parents, while the proposed bill would address whether the child receives citizenship in the first place.

If enacted and upheld, the legislation would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to hundreds of thousands of children born annually to temporary visa holders and undocumented parents. Those children could instead be treated as foreign nationals born on U.S. soil.

The proposal could also create a new class of stateless persons. That result would depend on the citizenship laws of the parents’ countries, as well as whether those countries recognize children born abroad as citizens through their parents.

McGuire’s bill does not change the citizenship of people born before enactment under the provisions described for the legislation. Its effect would begin with future births if Congress passes the measure and courts uphold it.

The measure now places Congress at the center of a dispute that began with Trump’s executive order and moved to the Supreme Court. The court rejected unilateral executive action, while Kavanaugh’s concurrence offered lawmakers a possible legislative path.

Roberts’ majority opinion described the historical understanding of the Citizenship Clause in direct terms: “a child born on American soil and subject to American law was made an American citizen.” McGuire’s bill asks Congress to adopt a different definition of who is subject to that jurisdiction, setting up a constitutional fight over whether lawmakers can alter a rule that has governed citizenship since Wong Kim Ark.