Which senators or representatives have sponsored or opposed the Birthright Citizenship Act recently?
Executive summary
Republican senators Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Katie Britt introduced S.304 in the Senate; Rep. Brian Babin introduced the companion H.R.569 in the House with multiple GOP co‑sponsors including Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama) [1] [2] [3]. Advocacy groups, civil‑rights organizations and many Democratic officials have publicly opposed these measures and the related Trump executive order; courts and legal groups have repeatedly blocked the administration’s executive attempt to restrict birthright citizenship [4] [5] [6].
1. Who sponsored the 2025 Birthright Citizenship bills — the Senate authors
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R‑SC) is the lead Senate sponsor of the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 (S.304), filed with Sen. Ted Cruz (R‑TX) and Sen. Katie Britt (R‑AL) as co‑sponsors; the Senate office press release named Graham, Cruz and Britt as the introducing team and described the bill’s goal of restricting automatic citizenship for many U.S.‑born children [1] [7].
2. Who sponsored the 2025 Birthright Citizenship bills — the House authors and co‑sponsors
In the House the bill is H.R.569, introduced by Rep. Brian Babin (R‑TX). House Republicans publicly announced co‑sponsors; one named co‑sponsor in available reporting is Rep. Robert Aderholt (R‑AL), who issued a press release celebrating his role as a co‑sponsor and framing the bill as “restor[ing] the 14th Amendment to its original intent” [8] [3].
3. Who publicly opposes the bills — civil‑rights and child advocacy voices
Child‑focused and immigrant‑rights groups mounted organized opposition. First Focus Campaign for Children explicitly urged Sen. Graham and Rep. Babin to oppose the bill and warned of “life‑long discrimination” for children [4]. National civil‑rights and immigrant‑rights organizations have led litigation and public campaigns against the related executive order and the legislative push [5] [6].
4. Courts and legal groups as political actors in this fight
Multiple federal judges issued injunctions blocking President Trump’s executive order to limit birthright citizenship; the New York City Bar Association and other legal advocates have characterized the executive action as unconstitutional and emphasized that only a constitutional amendment could clearly alter birthright citizenship [5]. Legal groups and state attorneys general filed suits that temporarily halted enforcement of the executive order while litigation proceeds [5] [9].
5. How sponsors frame the legislation and what they say it would do
Senate and House sponsors frame the bill as clarifying “subject to the jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment and limiting automatic citizenship to children born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or a non‑U.S. national in lawful status serving in the armed forces; the text and summaries repeat that the change would apply only to births after enactment and not retroactively [7] [2] [10].
6. The opponents’ argument and stated consequences
Opponents say the bill and the executive order would create a tiered system of citizenship, increase risks of statelessness, and harm children’s wellbeing; advocacy analyses estimate large social consequences and warn against undermining the century‑long interpretation of the 14th Amendment [11] [12] [4].
7. Where this leaves members of Congress who did not sign on
Available sources list the principal sponsors and named co‑sponsors but do not provide an exhaustive roll‑call of every senator or representative who opposed the bills in floor votes (not found in current reporting). Public opposition is documented from advocacy groups, state attorneys general and legal organizations rather than a complete tally of individual congressional dissenters [5] [6] [4].
8. Political context and likely next steps
Sponsors tie the bills to President Trump’s January 2025 executive order and to broader Republican immigration priorities; opponents have pursued litigation and public campaigns, and courts have already played a decisive role by blocking the executive order—leaving Congress, the courts and public advocacy as the arenas where this dispute will continue [1] [5] [6].
Limitations: reporting in the provided set identifies principal sponsors (Graham, Cruz, Britt; Babin and named House co‑sponsors such as Aderholt) and organized opposition from advocacy groups and legal challengers, but the sources do not supply a complete list of every senator or representative who has formally opposed or voted against the bills (not found in current reporting). All factual assertions above are drawn from the cited sources [1] [2] [8] [3] [7] [11] [12] [5] [6] [4].