Has the Born in America Act been signed into law or voted on by Congress as of December 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
As of December 12, 2025, the legislative measures discussed as the “Born in America Act” and related birthright-citizenship bills appear in Congress as drafted bills and proposals but sources in the provided set do not show a final enactment signed into law or a conclusive congressional passage of a Senate measure that imposed new eligibility rules for all federal officeholders (e.g., stripping naturalized citizens) [1] [2] [3]. Multiple bills and competing legal actions over the January 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship are active and headed to high-profile judicial review [4] [5] [6].
1. Reading the paperwork: bills are introduced, text exists — but introduction is not enactment
Congressional texts for several measures tied to the phrase “Born in the USA / Born in America” and other birthright-citizenship proposals are publicly posted: S.646 (Born in the USA Act) and H.R.3368 (Born in the USA Act) have full text on Congress.gov and GovTrack, and H.R.569 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025) also appears in the congressional record [1] [2] [7] [3]. Those documents set out findings, prohibitions on funding the January 20, 2025 executive order, or propose changes to statutory definitions, but the presence of bill text alone does not mean votes occurred or that a President signed a law [1] [2].
2. Conflicting claims on social media: fact-checkers say “not passed”
After social posts in late 2025 claimed a “Born in America Act” passed the Senate and immediately removed naturalized officeholders, fact-check organizations and trackers examined and debunked those claims. Snopes and Media Bias/Fact Check pieces flagged viral assertions that the Senate had passed such legislation and that it was already forcing resignations; their reporting indicates those social claims are inaccurate or unsupported by the legislative record in available reporting [8] [9]. Those fact checks caution that fundamental changes to office-holding eligibility typically would require constitutional amendment, a point underscored in the analyses [8].
3. What the congressional bills actually do (per their texts and summaries)
The bills and summaries in the record take different aims. S.646 and H.R.3368 explicitly target the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14160 by prohibiting federal funds to implement it and by restating judicial and statutory protections for birthright citizenship [1] [2] [3]. H.R.569 and other “Birthright Citizenship Act” drafts proposed altering the statutory definition of who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth — a substantive change that would affect some children born on U.S. soil — and are described in policy summaries such as the National Immigration Forum explainer [7] [10].
4. The executive branch and the courts: simultaneous, high‑stakes legal fight
The White House published Executive Order 14160 on January 20, 2025, aiming to narrow birthright citizenship, and legal challenges have repeatedly blocked enforcement. Multiple federal courts enjoined the administration; the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in Barbara v. Trump, a high‑profile case challenging the executive order [4] [5] [6]. These judicial developments mean the constitutional status of birthright citizenship and the reach of the executive order are being decided in court even as related bills circulate in Congress [5] [6].
5. Political theater vs. durable change: why passage would be hard
Several sources stress that permanently changing who may hold federal office or who is a citizen at birth would face steep constitutional obstacles. Fact-checkers and constitutional analysts point out that making naturalized citizens ineligible for federal office — as some viral summaries claimed — would likely require a constitutional amendment, not a simple statute [8]. The Brennan Center and policy groups reiterate that the Fourteenth Amendment and long-standing Supreme Court precedent establish broad birthright citizenship protections, underscoring legal friction against quick statutory revocations [11].
6. What’s missing or unclear in the available reporting
Available sources do not mention any final vote count or law-signing event in December 2025 that enacted a “Born in America” statute stripping naturalized citizens from office or otherwise broadly redefining federal-office eligibility [8] [9]. Also not found in current reporting: a Senate roll-call entry or Presidential signature that implements the extreme social-media claims. The record instead shows introduced bills, policy summaries, and court fights [1] [2] [7] [5].
7. Bottom line and why this matters
As of the latest documents and fact checks in this packet, the phrase “Born in America Act” refers to introduced bills and high-profile proposals but not to a enacted law that has been signed and is being enforced to disqualify naturalized or dual‑citizen federal officeholders; legal and constitutional battles over the executive order remain the focal point [1] [2] [8] [5]. Given the split between congressional drafts, policy advocacy, viral misinformation, and Supreme Court review, the practical status of U.S. birthright rules is unsettled and will be determined by ongoing litigation and any future, explicit congressional or constitutional action [5] [7].