Who are the primary sponsors and opponents of the Born in America bill?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The term “Born in America” has been used in two separate contexts in 2025 reporting: a Democratic-sponsored Born in the USA Act (Senate S.646 / House H.R.3368 and related House cosponsor materials) that would block funding for President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 and was led by Sen. Jacky Rosen in the Senate and Rep. Delia Ramirez and allies in the House (cosponsors listed) [1] [2] [3]. Separately, viral claims about a different “Born in America Act” authored by Sen. John Kennedy that supposedly stripped naturalized or dual‑citizen federal officials of office are false or not supported by Congress.gov searches and fact checks [4] [5] [6].
1. Two different bills — same shorthand, very different politics
Reporting and official documents show a Democratic “Born in the USA Act” introduced to prohibit federal funds from being used to carry out President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 (the order seeks to curtail birthright citizenship); the Senate version is S.646 and the House companion is H.R.3368 [1] [7]. This measure is framed by its sponsors as a defensive, constitutional-protection bill to block executive action they view as unlawful [2] [3].
2. Who sponsored the Democratic “Born in the USA Act”
Sen. Jacky Rosen is named as lead sponsor in public Senate materials, with co-sponsors including Dick Durbin, Brian Schatz, Chris Van Hollen, Richard Blumenthal, Alex Padilla, Catherine Cortez Masto, Jeanne Shaheen, Cory Booker and Peter Welch as listed in Rosen’s office release [2]. In the House, Rep. Delia Ramirez led a companion effort, citing 109 members backing the Born in the USA Act and naming several cosponsors and caucus leaders including Raja Krishnamoorthi, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Juan Vargas, Grace Meng and chairs of the Hispanic, Asian Pacific American and Black caucuses among supporters [3].
3. What sponsors say their motive is
Senate and House publicity frames the bill as a narrow spending prohibition: stop federal funds from implementing an executive order they call unconstitutional and illegal, and preserve the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship; quotes from Rosen and Durbin in the rollout tie the bill directly to blocking Executive Order 14160 [2] [3]. Advocacy and legal groups challenging the executive order have made similar public claims about preserving constitutional protections [8].
4. Opponents and competing proposals — the other side of the aisle
Multiple Republican initiatives in 2025 sought to limit birthright citizenship or reinterpret “subject to the jurisdiction” — for example, the Birthright Citizenship Act and related measures introduced by Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Claudia Tenney aim to curtail jus soli and redefine who is a citizen at birth [9] [10] [6]. The White House’s January 20, 2025 executive order itself and administration statements frame the change as consistent with their reading of the 14th Amendment and Congress’ role [11]. Available sources do not list an organized Republican roll opposing Rosen’s bill by name, but legislative cousins and the administration’s order represent active opposition to the bill’s goal [9] [11].
5. Viral claims about Sen. John Kennedy’s “Born in America” — fact checks contradict
Widespread online posts claimed Sen. John Kennedy passed a “Born in America Act” barring naturalized or dual‑citizen federal officeholders; reliable fact checks and Congress.gov searches found no such enacted bill and flagged the story as fabricated (Snopes; MediaBiasFactCheck; Meaww) [4] [5] [6]. Those fact checks identify a conflation between the real Democratic Born in the USA Act (a funding prohibition) and invented or mischaracterized Republican measures that purportedly purge officials from office — the latter narrative is unsupported by the congressional record [4] [5].
6. Why the distinction matters — legal and political stakes
The real Born in the USA Act is a funding rider designed to block an executive order; that is procedurally different from a statute rewriting eligibility for office or a constitutional amendment [1] [7]. Opposing bills that actually seek to eliminate jus soli or restrict eligibility (e.g., Birthright Citizenship Act, Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act) carry direct, structural changes and have partisan sponsors like Graham and Tenney [9] [10] [12]. Conflating them fuels misleading claims about immediate resignations and mass disqualifications, which fact-checkers say did not happen [4] [6].
7. Limits of available reporting and what’s unresolved
Available sources document sponsors and cosponsors for the Democratic Born in the USA Act and list Republican bills challenging birthright citizenship broadly, but they do not provide a single, comprehensive list of every organized group formally opposing Rosen/Ramirez’s bill in Congress by name; nor do they report any enacted law called “Born in America” that carried the drastic effects claimed online [1] [2] [3] [4]. For legal outcome context, the Supreme Court agreed to hear litigation over the executive order, which raises high-stakes constitutional questions that will influence future legislative and administrative moves [13].
Bottom line: the primary sponsors of the Democratic “Born in the USA” funding‑ban bill are Sen. Jacky Rosen (with listed Senate cosponsors) and Rep. Delia Ramirez (with 109 House cosponsors and caucus support) [2] [3] [1]. Opposing measures and the administration’s executive order have been advanced by Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Claudia Tenney, but viral claims that Sen. John Kennedy’s “Born in America” law passed and forced mass resignations are contradicted by fact checks and the congressional record [9] [10] [4] [6].