In a recent interview on "Fox News Sunday," House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, advocated for legislative action to curtail birthright citizenship in the United States. Johnson expressed concerns that the current immigration system is being exploited through "birthright tourism," a practice where individuals travel to the U.S. to give birth, thereby granting automatic citizenship to their children. He argued that this practice "devalues" citizenship and poses a "threat to the rule of law and national security."
This statement comes in the wake of a Supreme Court decision on June 30, 2026, which struck down an executive order from former President Donald Trump that sought to redefine birthright citizenship. The Court's 6-3 ruling reaffirmed the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, Johnson and other Republican leaders have signaled their intent to pursue legislative avenues to restrict birthright citizenship. In May 2026, Representative Clay Fuller introduced House Joint Resolution 172, proposing a constitutional amendment to redefine "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" under the 14th Amendment. The amendment aims to limit automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or a non-citizen serving in the U.S. military.
Additionally, in June 2026, Representative Andy Ogles introduced the Anchors Away Act, legislation designed to end "birth tourism" by making certain pregnant nonimmigrant aliens inadmissible to the U.S. if their primary purpose is to obtain citizenship for their child by giving birth on American soil.
These legislative efforts reflect a continued push by some lawmakers to address concerns about birthright citizenship, despite the Supreme Court's recent decision. The debate centers on balancing the constitutional rights enshrined in the 14th Amendment with the perceived challenges posed by birthright tourism and its implications for immigration policy.
The outcome of these legislative initiatives remains uncertain, as they face significant legal and political hurdles. Any amendment to the Constitution requires approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Given the current political landscape and public opinion, which largely favors maintaining birthright citizenship, achieving such a constitutional amendment would be a formidable challenge.
As the debate continues, it underscores the broader national conversation about immigration policy, citizenship, and the interpretation of constitutional principles in the context of modern challenges.