What are the key eligibility criteria in the Born in America Act?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The phrase “Born in America Act” has been used for several, different proposals in 2025–2026 discourse; there is no single, uncontested statute with a universally agreed set of eligibility rules (Snopes notes confusion and lack of a single bill recorded on Congress.gov) [1]. Depending on which proposal one examines, the key eligibility criteria either tighten who is a “citizen at birth” by conditioning it on a parent’s immigration status (Sen. Graham / Rep. Babin’s Birthright Citizenship Act and the Administration’s executive action), or would—per media descriptions of Sen. Kennedy’s proposal—amend the Constitution to require federal officeholders be “natural‑born” citizens [2] [3] [4].
1. What advocates label “Born in America” actually covers two different projects
Reporting and primary texts show two distinct legislative tracks: one set of measures (for example the Birthright Citizenship Act introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Brian Babin) would narrow who is a U.S. citizen at birth by tying jus soli to parental status, while other uses of the phrase point to Senator John Kennedy’s high‑profile proposal to require natural‑born status for federal officeholders—two very different eligibility regimes [2] [5] [4].
2. If referring to the Birthright Citizenship Act: citizenship-at-birth is conditioned on parents’ status
The Graham/Babin bill and related summaries make clear that under that proposal a child born in the United States would be “subject to U.S. jurisdiction” only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident residing in the United States, or in certain limited lawful statuses (for example active-duty non‑citizen military service is explicitly noted in some texts), which would exclude many children of parents on temporary visas or undocumented parents from automatic birthright citizenship [5] [2] [6].
3. The White House executive order and legal opposition frame the same eligibility shift differently
The Administration’s January 2025 Executive Order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” states that children born in the United States would not automatically be citizens when the mother was unlawfully present or present lawfully but temporarily and the other parent was not a citizen or LPR—mirroring the parental‑status conditioning in legislative proposals—and that policy has been enjoined repeatedly and is the subject of Supreme Court litigation [3] [6].
4. If referring to Kennedy’s “Born in America” media reports: natural‑born requirement for federal officeholders
Coverage and commentary about Senator Kennedy’s proposal describe a constitutional amendment that would require the President, Vice President and members of Congress to be “natural‑born” citizens and, by some accounts, born on U.S. soil—effectively barring naturalized citizens from federal office—though reporting on this varies in detail and some outlets appear to sensationalize the scope [4] [7]. Snopes cautions that social posts overstated actions like passage and resignations, and that a single, enacted “Born in America Act” as widely described does not appear on Congress.gov [1].
5. Legal and historical context constrains any eligibility changes and fuels litigation
Longstanding Supreme Court precedent (Wong Kim Ark) and federal statutes have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to grant birthright citizenship broadly to persons born in the United States, with narrow historical exceptions (diplomats, occupying forces), and civil‑rights and immigrant‑rights groups have mounted legal challenges to executive or statutory efforts that would narrow that understanding [8] [9] [6]. These precedents are central to why courts have blocked the Administration’s executive action and why any congressional attempt to alter citizenship at birth would face immediate constitutional litigation [6] [9].
6. Political motives, messaging, and misinformation complicate what “eligibility criteria” mean in practice
Advocates for parental‑status reforms frame eligibility changes as restoring “meaning” to citizenship and limiting so‑called “birth tourism,” while opponents say the measures create unequal classes of people born on U.S. soil; some online coverage and viral posts have amplified worst‑case frames (claims of immediate mass disqualifications of officeholders) that fact‑checkers find unsupported by the legislative record [3] [2] [1]. Reporting from partisan outlets and blogs also mixes proposed statutory language with more sweeping constitutional proposals, making it essential to identify which text is being discussed before listing “eligibility criteria” [4] [7].
7. Bottom line on the key eligibility criteria
If one means the Birthright Citizenship legislative proposals and the Administration’s executive order, the key criterion is parental immigration/status at the time of birth—citizenship at birth would be limited to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or fits narrowly defined lawful categories [5] [2] [3]. If one means the Kennedy‑framed “Born in America” constitutional pitch, the key criterion reported is “natural‑born” status (born on U.S. soil), which would bar naturalized citizens from certain federal offices, though concrete legislative text, enactment, and legal viability remain contested and in some reports uncorroborated [4] [1].