In a move that has ignited controversy and legal challenges, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day back in office, targeting birthright citizenship—a principle established in the U.S. Constitution for over 150 years. The order aims to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of their parents' immigration status.

Trump's order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” attempts to deny citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and certain categories of temporary legal visitors. Specifically, the order states that children born after January 20, 2025, to mothers who are unlawfully present in the U.S. or those whose residency is temporary, will not be considered U.S. citizens. This proposal sparked immediate backlash, with various civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, gearing up to challenge the legality of the order.

Experts argue that Trump's interpretation grossly misrepresents the 14th Amendment, which unequivocally states that all individuals born within the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. According to HuffPost, enthusiasm among constitutional scholars emphasizes that the term “subject to the jurisdiction” was not meant to exclude children of undocumented immigrants but rather applies strictly to foreign diplomats who hold immunity.

Over a century ago, the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark established that a child born in the U.S. to immigrant parents is automatically a citizen. This ruling remains a key point in opposition to Trump's newly proposed policies, with the Supreme Court previously ruling that laws must affirm citizenship rights to all individuals born on U.S. soil irrespective of parental status.

The response to Trump's order has been swift. A coalition of 18 Democratic-led states immediately filed a lawsuit, labeling the executive action as “blatantly unconstitutional” and an overreach of executive power. Legal analysts assert that any changes to birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, a process so rigorous that it has not occurred since 1992.

While Trump's administration may attempt to redefine citizenship through executive orders, history and judicial precedent bind such reinterpretations. The advocacy for maintaining birthright citizenship is clear; this includes voices from various immigration rights organizations that argue the importance of upholding established constitutional rights for all individuals born in the United States.

As the legal battle unfolds, the question remains whether the current Supreme Court, with its 6-3 Republican supermajority, will uphold the longstanding interpretation of birthright citizenship or yield to the Trump administration's controversial legal maneuvers. The stakes are high, as more than 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. face an uncertain future in light of these developments.

For more insights, visit Vox to explore the implications of this executive order and its potential impact on American society.