What is the text and full summary of the Born in America Act?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The “Born in the USA” / “Born in America” Act refers to multiple congressional bills and competing narratives in 2025 about birthright citizenship; the Senate and House versions (S.646 and H.R.3368 / H.R.3368 text available) affirm that the 14th Amendment and existing statute protect birthright citizenship and would block enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, including a prohibition on funding that order [1] [2]. Separately, a different proposal called the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025” (e.g., H.R.569 / S.304) would narrow who is “subject to the jurisdiction” and thereby restrict automatic citizenship for many U.S.-born children [3] [4].
1. What the named bills actually say — two competing legislative tracks
Congressional text labeled “Born in the USA/Born in the USA Act” (S.646 in the Senate; H.R.3368 in the House) is framed as a defensive measure: it states the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to persons born in the United States and explicitly forbids use of federal funds to implement Executive Order 14160 — President Trump’s January 20, 2025 order attempting to limit birthright citizenship — arguing birthright citizenship cannot be rescinded by executive order or an act of Congress [2] [1]. By contrast, the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025” (introduced as H.R.569 in the House and mirrored by proposals in the Senate) would redefine “subject to the jurisdiction” so that U.S. citizenship at birth would be limited to children whose parents are U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or certain non‑citizen service members — a clear effort to end the longstanding practice of universal jus soli [3] [4].
2. Executive Order 14160 — the flashpoint driving the legislation
President Trump’s executive order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” sought to internalize a new rule denying automatic citizenship to many children born in the U.S. after a set date, and the White House text frames this as consistent with some historical readings of the 14th Amendment [5]. Bills titled “Born in the USA” respond directly to that order: the congressional texts I cited argue federal courts have weighed against the order’s constitutionality and seek to block funding for it [2] [1].
3. Legal backdrop — constitutional precedent and civil‑rights organizations’ response
Longstanding legal consensus and Supreme Court precedent (notably United States v. Wong Kim Ark) have been cited by civil‑liberties groups and legal scholars as affirming almost universal birthright citizenship; the Brennan Center and organizations like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund document that the 14th Amendment has been understood to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, with narrow exceptions [6] [7]. The executive order triggered litigation: at least one federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement as to a specified class of children [7], and the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the order (Barbara v. Trump) [8].
4. Political effects and misinformation — what did and didn’t happen
Online claims that the Senate passed a “Born in America Act” stripping naturalized or dual‑citizen officeholders of their posts are false; investigative outlets and fact‑checkers have labeled those viral stories fabricated and not supported by congressional records [9] [10]. Fictional accounts and opportunistic blog posts amplified scenarios — such as immediate forced resignations or arrests of officeholders — that are not corroborated by official texts or credible reporting [11] [9].
5. Practical consequences if either approach prevailed
If Congress or the courts uphold the executive‑order‑blocking “Born in the USA” bills, the status quo — broad birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment and statutory law — would remain protected from the January 2025 executive action and its funding [1] [2]. If measures like the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 (H.R.569 / S.304) became law, they would narrow jus soli, potentially leaving many U.S.-born children without automatic citizenship and raising large administrative, legal, and human‑rights questions — an outcome advocacy groups warn would create statelessness and economic and social exclusion [4] [12].
6. Where reporting disagrees and key limitations
Sources agree there are two competing legislative narratives: one defensive (protecting existing birthright rules) and one restrictive (narrowing citizenship). The limits of available reporting here: primary congressional text and advocacy summaries are present [1] [2] [3] [4], litigation developments and Supreme Court docket entries are reported [7] [8], and multiple fact‑checks discredit viral claims [9] [10]. Available sources do not mention final congressional passage of a law that immediately altered officeholder eligibility as some social posts claimed — that specific claim is debunked [9] [10].
Bottom line: the phrase “Born in America Act” has been used for bills on both sides of the birthright‑citizenship debate; the congressional texts opposing the executive order aim to preserve existing constitutional and statutory birthright rules and block funding for Executive Order 14160 [1] [2], while separate bills seek to curtail automatic citizenship for many U.S.‑born children [3] [4]. Claims that a Senate passage instantly stripped naturalized officials of office are not supported by authoritative records and have been fact‑checked as false [9] [10].