Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the requirements for a person to be considered a natural-born US citizen?
Executive summary
The Constitution requires the President (and Vice President) to be a “natural born Citizen,” commonly read to mean someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth and did not undergo naturalization; Congress and courts have long treated both jus soli (born in the United States) and many jus sanguinis (born abroad to U.S. citizen parent[1] under statutory conditions) as producing citizens at birth [2] [3] [4]. The phrase itself is not defined in the Constitution and the Supreme Court has never issued a definitive, comprehensive holding that settles every edge case, leaving room for scholarly disagreement and contested executive and legislative actions in recent years [5] [2] [3].
1. The constitutional floor: what Article II actually says
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 disqualifies “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President,” and the Twelfth Amendment extends that bar to the Vice President; the clause sits alongside the age [6] and residency (14 years) requirements as constitutionally explicit thresholds for the presidency [4]. The Constitution does not define “natural born Citizen,” which is why legal scholars, Congress, and courts rely on historical practice, statutory language, and precedent to interpret it [5] [3].
2. Common law and early congressional practice: why many experts include children born abroad to U.S. parents
Framing-era sources and early federal statutes indicate the original meaning included persons who were citizens at birth even if born abroad to U.S. parents. The Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent enactments treated “children of citizens…born beyond sea” as citizens at birth, and modern scholarship at institutions like Harvard and Georgetown argues that this congressional practice supports including many foreign-born children of U.S. parents as “natural born” [3] [7].
3. Two practical paths to citizenship at birth: jus soli and jus sanguinis
Federal law and longstanding judicial interpretation recognize two main categories of citizens at birth: [8] persons born in the United States (birthright or jus soli), subject to the Fourteenth Amendment and interpreted through cases such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and [9] persons born abroad to one or more U.S. citizen parents who meet statutory residency requirements (jus sanguinis). Legal references and agency guidance treat both as citizenship-at-birth categories, which many scholars equate with “natural born” status for purposes of eligibility [10] [2] [11].
4. Where the definitive legal gap remains: the Supreme Court has not settled every question
Despite broad consensus on the core categories, the Supreme Court has never squarely resolved every nuance of “natural born citizen” for presidential eligibility, so legally contentious edge cases persist (for example, children born to diplomats, enemy occupiers, or certain territorial-born persons). The Constitution’s silence and the absence of a comprehensive high-court ruling leave room for competing interpretations and litigation [2] [5].
5. Recent political and administrative developments that complicate practical status
In 2025 the White House issued an executive order aiming to limit birthright citizenship for some children of noncitizen parents, asserting narrower readings of who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.; advocates and many legal scholars contend the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark protect most birthright citizenship, so the administrative move has been controversial and legally contested [12] [13] [10]. These contemporary actions underscore that political actors can test and challenge settled understandings even where long-standing legal practice exists [12] [13].
6. How federal statutes and administrative rules affect who is a citizen at birth (and thus plausibly “natural born”)
Congress and immigration law have long specified rules for children born abroad to U.S. citizens (residency requirements of parents, legitimation rules, retention provisions historically). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and State Department rules determine who is documented as a citizen at birth abroad, which practically determines eligibility for benefits and, for many commentators, supplies evidence of “natural born” status [11] [14].
7. Competing viewpoints and unresolved controversies
Some scholars and commentators argue for a narrow originalist meaning that would exclude certain foreign-born categories or read the clause as time‑limited; others (including many leading constitutional scholars) endorse a broader reading that includes citizens-at-birth regardless of birthplace, pointing to early statutes and common-law understandings [3] [7]. Political actors and litigation have on occasion tested these boundaries; available sources do not mention a single definitive judicial decision that ends the dispute [5] [2].
8. Practical takeaway for readers and potential candidates
If you were born a U.S. citizen at birth—either by being born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction, or by being born abroad to U.S. parent[1] under the applicable statutes—you are widely viewed as meeting the “natural born” criterion, but narrow or exceptional fact patterns can be litigated because the Supreme Court has not resolved every possible scenario [2] [10] [3]. For highly unusual situations (e.g., diplomatic births, certain territorial statuses, contested executive orders), the available sources do not present a single binding resolution and litigation or congressional action may be necessary to decide eligibility [5] [13].
If you want, I can: (a) list the key statutes that govern citizenship at birth for children born abroad, (b) summarize major court decisions such as Wong Kim Ark and their limits, or (c) collect recent public disputes and litigation over specific candidacies and executive actions using the sources above.