Which senators and representatives sponsored or cosponsored birthright citizenship bills in the 119th Congress and what were their public rationales?
Executive summary
Two distinct tracks on birthright citizenship emerged in the 119th Congress: a Republican-led pair of "Birthright Citizenship Act" bills in the House (H.R. 569) and Senate (S. 304) seeking to narrow automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children, and a Democratic-backed "Born in the USA Act" (S. 646) affirming that birthright citizenship is constitutional — with each side offering sharply different public rationales [1] [2] [3].
1. Who sponsored the House bill and what public rationale did its backers give?
The House bill filed as H.R. 569, titled the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025, was sponsored by Representative Brian Babin (R-TX-36), and Congress.gov lists 75 current cosponsors on that House filing (including 35 original cosponsors) as of the published cosponsor page [1] [4]. Individual House members who publicly announced their cosponsorship include Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), who in a February 17, 2025 press release said he supported the bill to "restore the 14th Amendment to its original intent," to prevent what he described as "chain migration" and "birth tourism," and to align with the Trump administration’s stated priorities on birthright citizenship [5]. GovTrack identifies Babin as the sponsor of H.R. 569, underlining that the bill’s title and framing come from its sponsor [6].
2. Who sponsored the Senate bill and how did senators justify it?
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sponsored the Senate companion, S. 304, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025, and the Library of Congress cosponsor page records seven current cosponsors for the Senate filing, including two original cosponsors [2]. The Graham office circulated legislative text for a Birthright Citizenship Act consistent with that sponsor role [7]. While the available congressional text and cosponsor listing establish Graham as sponsor and show the bill would limit citizenship-at-birth categories, public statements from Graham included in these materials are not quoted verbatim in the provided sources; the legislative materials themselves are presented as the primary evidence of the senator’s legislative intent to change statutory eligibility for citizenship at birth [7] [8].
3. Who filed opposing legislation and what rationale did they offer?
Senator Tina Smith’s office is not referenced here, but the Democratic counterproposal in the 119th Congress came as S. 646, the "Born in the USA Act," introduced by Senator Rosen (with a list of Democratic cosponsors in the bill text), which explicitly states that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, reinforced by federal law, and "therefore, birthright citizenship cannot be rescinded by executive order or by an Act of Congress," framing the bill as a protective measure against efforts to strip citizenship [3]. The text of S. 646—filed by Sen. Rosen with several Democratic colleagues named in the bill’s header—positions the measure as a constitutional reaffirmation and a guardrail against what its sponsors characterize as unlawful attempts to remove birthright citizenship [3].
4. Patterns, partisan divides, and declared motives
The available record shows a clear partisan split: the House and Senate Birthright Citizenship Acts are Republican-sponsored efforts to amend statutory recognition of citizenship at birth (H.R. 569 by Babin; S. 304 by Graham) with public rationales emphasizing restoring an alleged original meaning of the 14th Amendment, curbing "chain migration," and preventing "birth tourism" as cited in at least one House cosponsor’s press release [1] [2] [5]. Democrats crafted S. 646 to blunt such moves by reaffirming constitutional protections and statutory law, explicitly arguing that birthright citizenship cannot be undone through executive action or legislation [3]. Earlier Congresses' patterns of cosponsorship (e.g., previous bills attracting dozens of Republican cosponsors) are noted in legislative trackers but do not substitute for the 119th’s recorded cosponsor lists [9].
5. Limits of the reporting and what remains unstated
Congress.gov and GovTrack provide sponsor names, cosponsor counts, and bill texts for H.R. 569, S. 304, and S. 646, but the supplied sources do not enumerate every individual cosponsor by name in the excerpts provided here, nor do they contain a full transcript of public floor speeches or press conferences for every sponsor that would flesh out individualized rationales beyond the cited Aderholt release and bill texts [1] [2] [5] [3]. Therefore the analysis identifies sponsors and representative rationales that are stated in the record and acknowledges that additional personal statements from other cosponsors may exist outside these excerpts.