Senator James Lankford Introduces S. 5667 to Restrict Birthright Citizenship in U.S. Territories

Senator James Lankford introduced Senate Bill 5667, the Ending Birthright Citizenship in U.S. Territories Act, proposing a restriction on who can acquire citizenship by birth in U.S. territories. The bill text is dated September 30, 2026. It is not enacted.

The proposal would amend Section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If passed, the Senate measure would take effect immediately, while a House companion introduced by Rep. Morgan Griffith would take effect in 2027 if enacted. No change has taken effect under Lankford’s bill.

The bill is separate from two executive orders President Donald Trump signed on August 6, 2026: “Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” and “Ending Birth Tourism.” A Maryland federal court has temporarily blocked enforcement of the president’s directive while litigation proceeds.

The dispute reaches communities across the Pacific and other U.S. territories. Their citizenship statuses differ under current law.

Territorial citizenship rests on different statutory baselines

Federal statutes recognize people born in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as U.S. citizens. The Northern Mariana Islands obtained citizenship through a different statutory mechanism than the other listed territories.

American Samoa has a different baseline. People born there are U.S. nationals, not citizens, under the general statutory framework described by Congresswoman Stacey E. Plaskett.

Plaskett said the executive order’s territorial provision currently applies to American Samoa, which lacks a citizenship statute. She said it could also apply to another territory if Congress later repealed or narrowed the statute granting citizenship there. She described the provision as “a troubling escalation in this Administration's approach to birthright citizenship in the territories – which should not be in question.”

Lankford’s proposal would amend Section 301(a), but the territories’ citizenship protections do not all arise through the same statutory mechanism. The proposal therefore raises questions about how an amendment to that section would interact with other territorial statutes, including the separate arrangement for the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Northern Mariana Islands Covenant requires mutual consent for changes affecting the political relationship between the islands and the federal government. It is not clear how the proposal would affect citizenship under the Covenant.

The Maryland case leaves territorial births outside the class it describes

A federal court in Maryland temporarily blocked enforcement of the president’s executive directive pending litigation. The case is Blanca v. Trump, in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, case number 1:26-cv-04295.

An October 15, 2026 memorandum addresses the scope of the plaintiffs’ class and the challenged executive-order provisions. It states:

“Plaintiffs’ class definition does not include people born in United States territories, and Plaintiffs do not challenge Section 2(d) of the Executive Order.”

The memorandum also discusses preliminary relief in CASA IV as limited to that case’s existing class. It refers to an earlier Maryland ruling that found the 2026 Executive Order was “almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth.” The memorandum does not make the Blanca plaintiffs’ class include people born in the territories.

The Maryland court has not said how its temporary block applies to the executive order’s territorial provision concerning American Samoa. The litigation therefore has not resolved that provision’s application to territorial births.

Birth-tourism arguments now meet a separate territorial-rights debate

The Supreme Court’s June 30, 2026 ruling in Trump v. Barbara upheld birthright citizenship generally while allowing narrower exceptions. Griffith has said the decision did not address the process for citizenship by birth in U.S. territories. His House bill and Lankford’s Senate proposal both focus on territorial birthright citizenship, not the same question as the executive order’s operation.

Supporters have argued that legislation could address birth tourism. Guam physician Thomas Shieh said, “Birth tourism still exists on Guam.” He also warned that attention to the issue should not obscure local access to prenatal care, which he described as a problem on Guam.

Neil Weare, co-director of Right to Democracy, criticized the effort, saying it was “a disturbing trend built on the assumption that citizenship rights for those born in U.S. territories are not constitutionally protected the same as for those born in other parts of the United States”. The arguments reflect a wider disagreement over Congress’s power to set citizenship rules for territories and the rights attached to territorial birth.

The next developments are congressional action on S. 5667 and further proceedings in the Maryland litigation. Neither supplies a filing step or deadline for territorial families at this stage.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.