Senator Rand Paul Pushes Constitutional Amendment to End Birthright Citizenship

(UNITED STATES) — Kentucky Senator Rand Paul introduced a constitutional amendment on April 30, 2026, seeking to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or non-permanent residents.

The proposal would rewrite who counts as “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” at birth, a phrase at the center of the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment. Paul’s measure says a person born in the country qualifies only if one parent falls into one of three categories set out in the amendment text.

That text states: “A person born in the United States may only be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is — 1) a citizen or national of the United States; 2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or 3) an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the Armed Forces.”

Under that language, birthright citizenship would not automatically extend to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or parents who are in the country without permanent resident status, unless one parent met the conditions listed in the amendment.

Paul cast the proposal as a challenge to the current reading of the Constitution. In a post on X and press release, he said: “Under current interpretations of American law, anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether the parent was here legally or not. This is wrong and not at all the intent of those who wrote the 14th Amendment.”

He tied the measure to a broader immigration argument. “We are a country filled with immigrants, and legal immigration is valuable and should be protected. But we are also a country whose borders have been too open and our generosity exploited too often. President Trump has moved to seal our border from illegal immigrants more than any other president. But we will have more to do. We need to make sure that only children born to legal residents of the U.S. are automatically citizens.”

Paul also pointed to earlier legislation on the issue, saying he cosponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011. He described the amendment as a backup “in case the Supreme Court fails to address this issue correctly.”

The filing lands while birthright citizenship already sits before the courts. President Donald Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship,” issued on January 20, 2025, asserted that citizenship under the 14th Amendment does not extend to children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or on temporary visas.

Lower federal courts blocked that order from taking effect. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April 2026, and a decision is expected by the end of June 2026.

As of May 1, 2026, no change has taken effect. Trump’s executive order remains enjoined, and no USCIS policy changes or EOIR memos implement restrictions on birthright citizenship.

Current law rests on a longstanding interpretation of the Constitution’s citizenship clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” Under that reading, children born on U.S. soil typically acquire citizenship at birth regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

The Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, remains the central precedent. The Court held that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes only children of foreign diplomats or invading armies, not children born to undocumented parents.

Paul’s constitutional amendment would attempt to change that framework through Article V rather than through executive action alone. To amend the Constitution, the measure would need approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by 38 states.

That threshold is far steeper than the path for an executive order or a federal statute. It means the proposal would have to secure broad support in Congress and then win backing from state legislatures across the country before any change to birthright citizenship could take effect.

The amendment’s wording also draws a bright line between lawful permanent residents and other noncitizens. One category covers “an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States,” while another covers “an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the Armed Forces.”

In practice, that structure would limit automatic citizenship at birth to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident living in the country, or a noncitizen serving on active duty in the military with lawful status. Children born to undocumented immigrants or parents present on temporary visas would fall outside the automatic rule described in current constitutional practice.

The measure also places Rand Paul squarely inside a debate that has moved through all three branches of government. The executive branch has already tried to narrow birthright citizenship through Trump’s order, the judiciary has blocked that move while the Supreme Court considers the dispute, and Congress now has before it a proposal for a constitutional amendment that would go further by changing the text itself.

Birthright citizenship has long occupied a distinct place in American immigration and constitutional law because it ties citizenship to place of birth rather than to the immigration status of parents. Paul’s proposal argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” should be read more narrowly and written more explicitly into the Constitution.

Support for that position has existed in Congress before. Paul’s reference to the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 places the new measure inside an effort that predates Trump’s second term and now runs alongside the pending court fight over his January 20, 2025 order.

The court timetable gives the issue unusual urgency. If the Supreme Court rules by the end of June 2026, the justices could shape the legal limits of presidential power in this area before Congress takes any action on Paul’s amendment.

A ruling that leaves Trump’s order blocked would not change the amendment process. Congress would still need the two-thirds votes required by Article V, and the states would still need to ratify any change. A ruling that accepts Trump’s reading of the 14th Amendment would also not remove the amendment route from the political debate, since Paul has already framed his proposal as a safeguard if the Court does not decide the issue as he wants.

Public argument over birthright citizenship is likely to continue on multiple fronts, from court filings and floor debate to campaign messaging about border policy and legal immigration. As of May 1, 2026, though, the constitutional rule remains the same one the United States has applied for more than a century, and Paul’s measure stands as the latest attempt to change it through a constitutional amendment.