Born in America act , did it pass
Executive summary
Congress introduced multiple “Born in the USA/Birthright Citizenship” bills in 2025 that would limit or protect birthright citizenship; none of the introduced bills cited in available sources are shown as enacted law — H.R.3368 (Born in the USA Act) and S.646 are introduced texts, H.R.569 / S.304 (Birthright Citizenship Act) remain proposals, and H.R.3368 is listed as in the early legislative stage (introduced May 13, 2025) [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What Congress actually did: bills introduced, not enacted
Several bills bearing names like “Born in the USA Act” and “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025” were filed in the 119th Congress. Congress.gov and GovTrack show H.R.3368 (Born in the USA Act) and S.646 (Senate companion text) as introduced legislative texts that state findings and would bar federal funds for the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14160 [1] [2] [5]. The Birthright Citizenship Act (H.R.569 / S.304) that would redefine who is “subject to the jurisdiction” at birth was introduced and publicly summarized but is presented as proposed legislation, not enacted statute [3] [6] [7].
2. Conflicting claims on social media: passage and immediate removals
Viral posts have claimed a “Born in America Act” passed the Senate and instantly stripped naturalized or dual-citizen federal officials of office. Fact-checkers and tracking sites report that those claims are false or unsupported by the legislative records available: Media Bias/Fact Check and Snopes assessed social posts asserting Senate passage and immediate personnel consequences and flagged them as inaccurate or misleading [8] [9]. GovTrack and Congress.gov list H.R.3368 as introduced and in early stages, not as passed law [4] [1].
3. The core legal obstacle: the Constitution and the 14th Amendment
Legal scholars and advocacy organizations note the centrality of the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent to birthright citizenship. The Brennan Center summarizes that the 14th Amendment and cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark long have been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, with narrow exceptions [10]. The introduced Born in the USA Act texts themselves state that birthright citizenship cannot be rescinded by executive order or by an Act of Congress, and they explicitly seek to block Executive Order 14160 by prohibiting funds to implement it — an acknowledgement of constitutional and judicial constraints [2] [1].
4. The White House executive order that sparked the legislation
President Trump issued Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” on January 20, 2025, attempting to exclude certain U.S.-born children from citizenship; that order has been repeatedly blocked in the lower courts and is the focal point of both litigation and congressional responses [11] [12]. Legislative texts like H.R.3368 and S.646 respond directly to that order by seeking to prevent federal implementation via funding prohibitions [1] [2].
5. What would be required to change eligibility for federal officeholders
Social posts claiming that Congress could instantly force federal officeholders who are naturalized or dual citizens from their positions conflate statutory change with constitutional requirements. Multiple sources note that altering the “natural-born citizen” requirement for offices such as the presidency would likely require a constitutional amendment or face severe legal challenge — a point emphasized by fact-checkers debunking claims of sudden removals [8]. Available reporting does not show any enacted law purporting to strip officeholders of their positions as of the documents and fact checks cited [8] [4].
6. Legal fights are ongoing at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a high-profile challenge to the executive order (Trump v. Barbara), and civil-rights groups have said courts have repeatedly blocked the order as unconstitutional; that litigation will be decisive on whether the administration’s arguments survive review [12]. Congressional bills and advocacy group briefs indicate competing strategies: legislative restrictions on implementation funding on one side; constitutional and precedent-based defenses of birthright citizenship on the other [1] [2] [12].
7. How to interpret the information and watch for misreporting
Official legislative databases (Congress.gov, GovTrack) show introduction and committee-stage statuses for the named bills; independent fact-checkers flagged viral claims of passage and office purges as false or misleading [4] [8] [9]. Readers should prioritize primary sources — the bill texts on Congress.gov and the White House executive order — and the Supreme Court docket for final legal outcomes [1] [11] [12].
Limitations: available sources do not mention any enacted statute or official government list documenting forced resignations of federal officeholders under a “Born in America Act”; they also do not provide a final Supreme Court decision resolving the executive order as of the documents cited [8] [12].