What is Executive Order 14160 and how do the Born in the USA Act texts seek to block it?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Executive Order 14160 is a January 20, 2025 presidential directive that attempts to narrow the federal government’s long‑standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause by declaring certain U.S.-born children — specifically those whose mothers were unlawfully present or temporarily present and whose fathers were not citizens or lawful permanent residents — are not “subject to the jurisdiction” and therefore not citizens at birth [1] [2]. The Born in the USA Act texts in the House (H.R.3368) and Senate (S.646) seek to block that order primarily by prohibiting federal funds from being used to implement EO 14160 and by formally declaring congressional findings repudiating the order’s legal premise [3] [4] [5].
1. What Executive Order 14160 says and the policy it attempts to change
The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” identifies circumstances in which a person born in the United States would not be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” including births when the mother was unlawfully present or lawfully present only temporarily and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident, and directs agencies not to recognize or issue documents acknowledging citizenship for such persons born after a specified delay period [1] [6]. The Administration framed the EO as a reinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause and a restatement of policy, but critics — including civil‑rights and immigrant‑rights groups — view it as an attempt to unilaterally rewrite rights that the Fourteenth Amendment and Supreme Court precedent have long protected [2] [7].
2. Immediate legal pushback and judicial rulings
Within days of the order, states, civil‑rights organizations, and immigrant advocates filed lawsuits challenging EO 14160 as inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act; federal judges in multiple districts issued preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement as to classes of affected children and pregnant women [2] [7] [8]. The Supreme Court’s docket and related slip opinions note that the EO “identifies circumstances” to exclude persons from being “subject to the jurisdiction,” but at least one court has declined to resolve the constitutional question in a way that allowed the order to take effect, while other district courts certified nationwide classes and issued injunctions [6] [1] [8].
3. How the Born in the USA Act texts seek to block the order
Both the House and Senate versions of the Born in the USA Act contain language that would bar any federal appropriation or other funds from being used to carry out EO 14160, effectively tying Congress’s power of the purse to prevent implementation even if the Executive Branch attempted enforcement [3] [4] [5]. The bills’ findings explicitly describe federal courts’ skepticism about the order’s constitutionality and characterize the EO as “flagrantly and clearly unconstitutional,” and they codify congressional opposition to any administrative redefinition of birthright citizenship — a legislative posture intended to limit executive action and preserve the status quo pending judicial resolution [3] [4] [5].
4. Constitutional and political stakes — competing narratives
Supporters of the EO argue it addresses what they view as an illegitimate expansion of birthright citizenship; the Administration also contends that executive action can clarify statutory and constitutional standards [1]. Opponents, including the Brennan Center, ACLU, and state attorneys general, argue that the order sidesteps the constitutional amendment process and conflicts with 19th‑century precedent (Wong Kim Ark) and later judicial treatment that have long been interpreted to secure birthright citizenship, and they emphasize that courts and legal scholars have repeatedly viewed the EO as legally vulnerable [2] [7] [9]. The Born in the USA Act therefore functions politically as both a funding shield and a statement of congressional intent to preserve existing legal interpretations and to constrain executive reinterpretation [3] [10].
5. Bottom line and limits of current reporting
The practical effect of EO 14160 has so far been blunted by litigation and court orders that have enjoined its enforcement for defined classes and raised substantial constitutional questions, and the Born in the USA Act texts aim to harden that resistance by denying funds and declaring congressional opposition to the order’s legal theory [8] [3] [4]. Reporting and primary legislative texts document these mechanisms clearly, while remaining litigation could change the balance of power between the branches; available sources show Congress using appropriation language as a familiar, constitutionally grounded tool to block controversial executive actions, but do not foreclose future legal or political developments [5] [6].