The current Administration has been throwing around the term “birth tourism”. This article breaks down what this means and the current policies around it.
The 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship for all people born or naturalized in the United States in 1868. These concepts have been discussed since before the US’s independence, and they can sometimes be referred to in their Latin names. Birthplace-based citizenship is jus soli (translates to the right of soil) and parental ancestry-based citizenship is jus sanguinis (translates to the right of blood). Unrestricted birthright citizenship primarily exists across the Americas, with only a few exceptions. The concept of birthright citizenship has been challenged since the Amendment was created. One early example is Wharton’s Conflict of Laws (1872), arguing for the focus to be on the parents’ status, not the child’s. However, case law has solidified the basis for children receiving citizenship if born in the jurisdiction of the USA ( Lynch v. Clark ; US v. Wong Kim Ark ).
The recent Supreme Court case Trump v. Barbara (2026) found Executive Order No. 14160 to be unconstitutional. The Executive Order, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, cited that the 14th Amendment was created after descendants of enslaved Africans were denied citizenship based on their race (see Dred Scott v. Sandford ). The Executive Order wanted to separate that original intention from how the 14th Amendment is being applied today. It claimed that if the parents were in the US unlawfully or temporarily, then they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the 14th Amendment cannot apply to guarantee citizenship for their children. This claim was denied and Trump v. Barbara (2026) held that parents unlawfully or temporarily in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which means that the 14th Amendment applies.
A key point is that while Executive Order 14160 may have been denied as unconstitutional, the issue and scope of birth tourism remain. While the exact number of babies born to birth tourism is unknown, many cite an estimate of 9,500 annual births (Chishti & Putzel-Kavanaugh, 2026). The Center for Immigration Studies looked at 2016-17 data and concluded that 20-26k births occurred in tourism each year.
Birth tourism has been condemned as a method to circumvent standard immigration routes. While giving birth in the US is not illegal, obtaining a visa with the intention of giving birth for citizenship is considered fraud. In 2020, B nonimmigrant visa regulations were updated to deny visas if the applicant’s purpose appeared to be giving birth in the US to obtain citizenship for their child (CBP, 2025). The Office of the Spokesperson released a factsheet on August 10th, stating that a U.S. embassy in North Africa cited birth tourism as the reason to revoke over 100 visas.
Executive Order 14418 (issued Aug. 6, 2026) states that citizenship not be issued on four distinct grounds, one of which is “either parent of that person engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship for the person, or engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship.” It includes when the parent(s) engage in a commercial transaction to ensure that the individual’s mother (or surrogate) is in the USA for the birth. The new Birth Tourism Prevention Task Force intends to dismantle networks that are profiting and has revoked visas of 600 (as announced in the Aug. 12th Factsheet).
Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a press statement regarding a new tactic to end birth tourism: a new visa restriction policy. The statement specifies, “This policy targets individuals who knowingly engage in, have engaged in, or facilitate birth tourism to the United States, including owners, operators, and managers of commercial birth tourism facilitation networks, visa “fixers” who coach applicants to commit fraud, foreign medical providers who knowingly abet and facilitate such travel and the fraudulent use of our Medicaid system, and other individuals who support, abet, and enable commercial birth tourism,” (Sept. 23, 2026). The visa would fall under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This section of INA invokes grounds that an alien can be denied citizenship because it would cause serious adverse foreign policy consequences. This is not designed to be used as a tool to be applied due to an alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations (as long as it is in line with US law).
The new method of the Trump Administration is targeting those engaging in commercial transactions and fraud in order to have a child born in the US. The framing is being shifted from parents illegally or temporarily in the US as not being subject to the jurisdiction of the US, to the prevention of citizenship being sold for profit. Rubio’s September 23rd Press Release states, “The United States will not allow foreigners to exploit our immigration system and violate the sanctity of U.S. citizenship.” The Press Release articulated the integrity of US citizenship, protecting national security, and preventing the exploitation of taxpayers’ and citizens’ benefits as reasons to prevent birth tourism.