What key provisions are included in the Born in America bill and how would they change immigration or citizenship policy?
Executive summary
The “Born in the USA” legislative package in 2025 centers on two distinct tracks: H.R. 3368 / S.646 titled the Born in the USA Act would bar any federal funding to implement President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which sought to narrow recognition of some U.S.-born children’s citizenship (it explicitly forbids using funds to carry out that order) [1] [2] [3]. Separate but related measures — notably the Birthright Citizenship Act (H.R. 569 / S.304 and similar proposals) — would change statutory definitions in the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit automatic citizenship for children born here to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents [4] [5] [6].
1. What the Born in the USA Act actually says: a funding ban aimed at the President’s order
The core provision of H.R. 3368 (the Born in the USA Act of 2025) is straightforward: it prohibits appropriation or other Federal funds from being used to carry out Executive Order 14160, the January 20, 2025 White House order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which seeks to deny recognition of citizenship to some U.S.-born children [3] [1]. Congress’s stated action is not to rewrite citizenship law directly but to block implementation of the executive policy by cutting off money for it [2] [3].
2. What Executive Order 14160 attempted to change — and why Congress responded
The White House explanation of E.O. 14160 asserts the Fourteenth Amendment excludes persons “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and argues the executive branch can narrow birthright recognition accordingly; the order instructs agencies to stop recognizing citizenship for certain U.S.-born children unless Congress or courts say otherwise [7]. H.R. 3368 responds by preventing agencies from spending taxpayer dollars to act on that directive [3].
3. How the Born in the USA Act would change practice, if enacted
If H.R. 3368 became law, federal departments and agencies would be barred from using funds to implement the E.O. — meaning the executive branch could be prevented administratively from denying citizenship to U.S.-born children under that order. The bill does not itself alter who is a citizen at birth under federal statute or the Constitution; it is a funding restriction focused on the executive policy [3] [2].
4. Related statutory efforts that would change birthright citizenship directly
Separate legislation — the Birthright Citizenship Act (H.R. 569/S.304 and related bills) — would directly amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to redefine who is “subject to the jurisdiction” and therefore a U.S. national at birth. Those bills would limit automatic citizenship to children born to a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident residing in the U.S., or certain noncitizens with lawful immigration status (e.g., active military service), explicitly excluding many children born to parents without lawful permanent status [4] [5] [6].
5. Practical consequences proposed by advocates and opponents
Advocates of narrowing the statute and of the E.O. argue the change restores what they characterize as the Constitution’s original limits on “subject to the jurisdiction” [7]. Opponents — including immigration advocacy groups and legal analysts — warn statutory changes would end the long-standing, court-recognized rule that U.S.-born children are citizens irrespective of parental status (citing Wong Kim Ark and current DOJ/USCIS practice), and predict drastic real-world effects: children born days apart could have different legal statuses, and many U.S.-raised people could lose access to work authorization and benefits [8] [9] [6].
6. Legal and political friction: executive orders vs. statutes and courts
H.R. 3368 targets an executive order; it does not resolve constitutional questions. The White House framed E.O. 14160 as consistent with a narrower reading of the Fourteenth Amendment [7]. The Birthright Citizenship Act would attempt a statutory redefinition but faces claims that long-standing Supreme Court precedents and constitutional protections — notably United States v. Wong Kim Ark and the Brennan Center’s analysis that the 14th Amendment broadly grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil — constrain such changes [8] [6].
7. What reporting does not say or resolve
Available sources do not say that H.R. 3368 itself alters the underlying legal test for citizenship at birth; it is a funding prohibition aimed at blocking an executive implementation [3]. Sources do not resolve the ultimate constitutional outcome; whether courts would uphold the E.O. or any statutory redefinition is a matter of ongoing litigation and legal analysis not concluded in these documents [7] [8].
8. Why this matters now — stakes and hidden agendas
The split approach — a funding ban on the E.O. alongside separate bills to rewrite statutes — shows competing tactics: Democrats and opponents use appropriations law to neuter executive action [3], while proponents pursue lasting statutory change to alter birthright rules [4] [5]. Both tracks carry political signaling: blocking the E.O. protects the status quo; statutory changes aim to achieve the same policy by a different route, raising the likelihood of protracted court fights and deep policy impacts if enacted [3] [6].