Has the Born in America Act passed either chamber of Congress as of December 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
As of mid-December 2025, the bills titled “Born in the USA Act” (S.646) and a companion House bill H.R.3368 exist as introduced text but have not been enacted; H.R.3368 is listed as introduced and in the early stages of the legislative process [1] [2]. Separate but related proposals changing birthright rules — including the “Birthright Citizenship Act” (H.R.569/S.304) — were introduced in 2025 but remain proposals, not law [3] [4].
1. What’s on the books in Congress: introduced but not passed
Congress.gov and tracking services show the Born in the USA Act appears in both chambers as text (S.646 in the Senate and H.R.3368 in the House), but the House version is recorded as introduced and in the early legislative stage rather than passed or enacted [5] [1] [2]. GovTrack labels H.R.3368 “in the first stage of the legislative process,” indicating it has not cleared either chamber [1].
2. Multiple bills with overlapping aims — don’t conflate them
Several separately named measures in 2025 address birthright citizenship. The Born in the USA Act (S.646/H.R.3368) focuses on blocking funding for the administration’s Executive Order 14160 and affirming that birthright citizenship cannot be rescinded by executive order or act of Congress [5] [2]. Another proposal, the Birthright Citizenship Act (H.R.569/S.304) — championed by Republicans including Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Brian Babin — seeks to restrict automatic citizenship for many U.S.-born children and is a distinct legislative initiative [3] [4] [6].
3. Conflicting political narratives and viral claims
Social posts in late 2025 circulated claims that a “Born In America Act” had passed and immediately disqualified naturalized citizens or officeholders with dual citizenship — assertions that fact-checkers found inaccurate or misleading [7]. Snopes specifically examined viral posts claiming Senate passage and mass resignations, noting such a substantive change would likely require a constitutional amendment and that the viral narrative misstates the bill’s status [7].
4. The administration’s executive action sits at the center of legislative responses
President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” issued January 20, 2025, prompted multiple legislative reactions and lawsuits. The Born in the USA Act’s text explicitly references that order and includes a prohibition on using federal funds to implement it, signaling congressional pushback in one legislative strategy [5] [2]. The White House text of the executive order and the ensuing litigation also drive actions in Congress and the courts [8] [9].
5. Courts and civil-rights groups remain the decisive arena
Legal challenges to the executive order reached the Supreme Court docket in December 2025, with advocacy groups arguing the order violates the 14th Amendment and long-standing precedent such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark [9] [10]. That judicial process, and not unilateral legislative emails or viral posts, will determine whether the executive order or related policies can be implemented — independent of the separate congressional bills [9] [10].
6. What the sources do not say — limits of current reporting
Available sources do not mention any formal recorded vote in either chamber enacting a version of the “Born in the USA Act” that changes constitutional eligibility for federal officeholders or that strips naturalized citizens from office; GovTrack and Congress.gov list the measures as introduced and in early stages [1] [2]. Sources do not report a final passage or presidential signature for H.R.3368 or S.646 as of the cited documents [1] [5].
7. Why the distinction between bills matters politically and legally
A statute cannot supersede the Constitution; major changes to who counts as a citizen at birth or who is eligible for federal office would likely require a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court reinterpretation, a reality emphasized by analysts and fact-checkers cited in coverage [7] [10]. Legislative texts that merely block funding for an executive order (as in the Born in the USA Act’s introduced text) have a different practical effect than bills that purport to rewrite citizenship rules [5] [2] [3].
Bottom line: the Born in the USA Act and related birthright measures were active topics in 2025, with introduced bills and strong political debate, but available congressional tracking and reputable fact-checking in the provided sources show no evidence that such a bill had passed either chamber and become law as of the cited reporting [1] [7] [5].