Trump Weighs Entry Restrictions for Pregnant Foreign Visitors After Supreme Court Ruling

The Trump administration is considering tighter restrictions on pregnant foreign women seeking to enter the United States, following a landmark US Supreme Court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born on American soil.

Although no formal policy has been announced, senior White House officials say the administration is exploring measures to curb birth tourism—the practice of travelling to the United States primarily to give birth so that a child automatically acquires US citizenship.

The renewed push comes after the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, declared unconstitutional President Trump’s executive order that sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are either in the country illegally or on temporary visas. The court held that the order violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which has guaranteed birthright citizenship for more than 150 years.

The ruling represents a significant legal setback for one of the Trump administration’s most ambitious immigration initiatives, reinforcing long-standing constitutional protections for nearly everyone born on US soil.

Despite the decision, White House officials have signalled that the administration is not backing away from efforts to tighten immigration policies surrounding birthright citizenship.

Speaking after the judgment, Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security, said the administration would take “a hard look” at restricting entry for pregnant foreign nationals if officials believe their primary reason for travelling is to give birth in the United States.

According to Miller, immigration authorities must carefully assess temporary visitors because of concerns surrounding birth tourism.

READ ALSO:

• Ogun 2027: Group Rejects Yayi’s Governorship Bid, Endorses Adebutu
• Adeyemi Insists Gbajabiamila Approved His Appointment as Court Case Begins
• UK Plans £10,000 Repayment Rule for Asylum Seekers Before Permanent Settlement

“You have to now think very carefully about who you let into your country, even on a temporary basis because of the possibility for birth tourism.”

He argued that some foreign nationals deliberately travel to the United States in the final weeks of pregnancy so their children can obtain American citizenship, which he claimed could provide long-term access to government benefits and immigration opportunities.

The administration has consistently argued that birthright citizenship creates incentives for illegal immigration and rewards individuals who violate US immigration laws while disadvantaging those who follow legal immigration procedures.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said President Trump remains committed to protecting what she described as the value of natural-born American citizenship.

She disclosed that the President has directed Congress to consider legislative measures addressing birthright citizenship while instructing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prioritise investigations into alleged birth tourism operations.

“The Department of Justice will also prioritise investigations of birth tourism schemes. The Trump administration has many tools to safeguard American citizenship,” Jackson said.

Meanwhile, Senator Markwayne Mullin, a key Trump ally, also suggested that tougher restrictions on pregnant visitors are being considered.

Speaking on Fox News, Mullin alleged that some women enter the United States on tourist visas during the final weeks of pregnancy specifically to give birth before returning to their home countries.

He argued that some children born through birth tourism later return to the United States after being raised abroad, raising concerns he linked to national security and intellectual property protection.

While the administration portrays birth tourism as a growing concern, immigration experts say it represents only a small fraction of births in the United States.

The US government does not maintain official statistics on births involving temporary foreign visitors. However, independent estimates suggest that between 20,000 and 26,000 babies are born each year to mothers who entered the country on temporary visas.

Current US immigration regulations already allow consular officers to refuse tourist visa applications if they determine that an applicant’s primary purpose is to obtain US citizenship for a child through childbirth. However, pregnancy itself is not grounds for visa denial. Applicants may still qualify if they demonstrate a legitimate reason for travel and the financial means to cover medical expenses without relying on public assistance.

Legal experts note that any new policy targeting pregnant travellers would likely face significant judicial scrutiny. Immigration authorities would have to ensure that any restrictions comply with constitutional protections, anti-discrimination laws and existing immigration statutes.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed decades of constitutional precedent, holding that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to almost everyone born within the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, except in limited circumstances such as children born to accredited foreign diplomats.

Although the administration cannot overturn that constitutional interpretation through executive action, officials have indicated they will continue pursuing alternative measures through legislation, stricter visa screening and criminal investigations into organised birth tourism networks.

Immigration analysts say the debate over birthright citizenship is likely to remain one of the most contentious issues in US immigration policy, with further legal and political battles expected in Congress and the courts.

Trump Weighs Entry Restrictions for Pregnant Foreign Visitors After Supreme Court Ruling

UK Plans £10,000 Repayment Rule for Asylum Seekers Before Permanent Settlement

The UK government has proposed sweeping reforms that could require some asylum seekers to repay up to £10,000 (about ₦18 million) in state support before they become eligible for permanent settlement in Britain.

The proposal, contained in the newly introduced Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026, would empower the Home Office to recover the costs of accommodation and financial support provided to asylum seekers once they have secured refugee status and are financially able to contribute.

If approved by Parliament, the measure would mark one of the most significant changes to the UK’s asylum system in recent years, shifting part of the financial burden of refugee support from taxpayers to beneficiaries who later become economically stable.

Under the proposed legislation, adults who received asylum support—including accommodation and weekly subsistence payments—could be required to repay around £10,000 before qualifying for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), commonly known as permanent settlement.

The repayment scheme would be means-tested, meaning only those with sufficient financial resources would be expected to contribute. Government officials said the exact repayment thresholds and collection methods would be determined by the Home Secretary through secondary legislation.

The reforms would also apply to former asylum seekers who leave the UK and later wish to return, requiring them to settle any outstanding repayment obligations before becoming eligible under the settlement pathway.

READ ALSO:

• US Withdraws Majority of Troops from Nigeria After Counterterrorism Mission
• Ronaldo Makes World Cup History as Ramos Fires Portugal Past Croatia into Round of 16
• Court of Appeal to Deliver Judgment Friday in UI-ISI Hijab Case

Defending the proposal, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the government had already reduced asylum accommodation costs by £1 billion, but insisted that those who eventually establish themselves financially should help repay the cost of the support they received.

“The cost of asylum accommodation to the British taxpayer is too high.

“We have already reduced asylum costs by £1 billion, but it is also right that we ask those who can contribute to do so.

“Receiving asylum support is a right, but it is also a responsibility. Once people can contribute and repay the generosity of the British people, we expect them to do so.”

The Home Office said the policy is intended to create a fairer and more sustainable asylum system while easing pressure on public finances.

According to government estimates, accommodating an asylum seeker in dispersal accommodation costs an average of £23.25 per person per night, while housing someone in a hotel costs approximately £144 per person each night.

Weekly subsistence payments currently range between £9.95 and £49.18 per person, depending on individual circumstances.

The government says the UK spent billions of pounds on asylum accommodation and support in recent years, making cost recovery a necessary component of broader immigration reforms.

The Home Office argues that many refugees become financially independent after receiving protection.

Government data shows that about 25% of people aged 16 to 64 who were granted asylum between 2015 and 2023 secured employment within the same calendar year they obtained refugee status. That figure increased to 50% within two years.

Among refugees employed eight years after being granted protection, 37% worked full-time with median annual earnings of around £23,000, while approximately 40% earned above the UK’s minimum wage.

Officials say these figures demonstrate that many recognised refugees are capable of contributing financially once they have rebuilt their lives.

The proposal has, however, sparked criticism from refugee advocacy organisations, immigration lawyers and human rights groups.

Critics argue that recognised refugees often spend years waiting for asylum decisions during which they have limited opportunities to work or build savings. They warn that requiring repayments before granting permanent settlement could delay integration, create financial hardship and discourage long-term stability for vulnerable people fleeing conflict and persecution.

Some campaigners have described the proposal as unprecedented, noting that refugees are generally not required to repay asylum support before obtaining permanent residency in most countries.

The repayment proposal forms part of a broader package of immigration reforms introduced through the Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026.

The legislation also includes measures aimed at reforming asylum appeals, strengthening age assessment procedures, revising modern slavery protections and tightening immigration enforcement.

The UK government says the reforms are designed to reduce pressure on public finances, discourage irregular migration and restore public confidence in the country’s asylum system.

The bill is currently before Parliament and must complete the legislative process before the proposed repayment requirement can become law.

UK Plans £10,000 Repayment Rule for Asylum Seekers Before Permanent Settlement

UK Apologises for Historic Forced Adoption, Unveils £4 Million Support Package for Survivors

The United Kingdom government has formally apologised to thousands of people affected by historical forced adoption practices and announced a £4 million support package to help survivors access adoption records, reconnect with relatives and receive specialist mental health support.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivered the landmark apology in the House of Commons on behalf of the British state, acknowledging that successive governments failed mothers, children and families through adoption policies that operated largely between 1949 and 1976.

The apology follows years of advocacy by survivors, campaign groups and human rights organisations, as well as recommendations by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), which concluded that many women were coerced into surrendering their babies for adoption rather than making a free and informed choice.

Addressing campaigners who watched from the public gallery, Starmer acknowledged the lasting trauma caused by the historical practices.

“The shame is not yours. The shame was never yours. The shame is ours.”

He added:

“And I say that on behalf of the whole country, I say it to every single person impacted: we are deeply and profoundly sorry.”

The Prime Minister admitted that many unmarried women were subjected to intense social stigma and pressure from hospitals, adoption agencies, religious institutions, social workers and even family members to give up their babies. In many cases, mothers were made to believe they were unfit to raise their children or were persuaded to sign adoption documents shortly after childbirth without meaningful support or genuine consent.

READ ALSO:

• Bandits Kill Chief Imam, Two Others in Coordinated Sokoto Village Attacks
• Court Affirms David Mark-Led ADC Leadership, Dismisses Abejide’s Suit
• FG Explains Why NYSC Khaki Will Be Replaced With Adire Fabric

The government estimates that about 185,000 mothers, adopted people and their families were directly affected by these practices. It also acknowledged the pain experienced by fathers, siblings, grandparents and extended family members who were separated from loved ones for decades.

Alongside the apology, the government announced a £4 million fund, which will be distributed over the next three years to provide practical and emotional support for those affected by forced adoption.

According to ministers, the funding will improve access to adoption records through CoramBAAF, expand intermediary services such as Family Connect to help reunite biological families where appropriate, provide specialist counselling and mental health support, strengthen peer-support networks, fund academic research into the long-term effects of forced adoption, and finance a national testimonials project to preserve survivors’ experiences.

The government said the support package was developed following extensive consultations with survivors, many of whom identified access to personal records, family reunification and emotional support as their greatest needs.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson described the historical practices as “an appalling injustice” that denied families precious moments and lifelong relationships.

“The pain carried by mothers, adopted children and their families who suffered this appalling injustice is unimaginable. They were cruelly denied irreplaceable moments, shared experiences and relationships which should have been theirs, and were made to feel ashamed.

“Today, on behalf of the British state, we say with one voice: this was wrong, and we are sorry. An apology cannot undo what happened, but it can be the start of real change, alongside providing the practical action, care and support that people need.”

The government also accepted responsibility for the failures of previous administrations, admitting that the state funded, enabled and legitimised systems that did not adequately protect vulnerable women and children.

Officials acknowledged that some adoption records were lost, altered or withheld, leaving many adopted people unable to trace their biological families or understand their personal histories.

“The state did not do enough to protect mothers, children and families and it failed to prevent harm from continuing. It bears responsibility for the systems it funded and legitimised, which enabled these practices to take place,” the government said.

Beyond the financial package, ministers announced several additional measures, including improving access to adoption records, expanding family reconnection services, working with NHS England to improve physical and mental healthcare for survivors, increasing awareness of historical forced adoption across public services, establishing a Lived Experience Reference Group to monitor implementation of the reforms, and commissioning a national testimonials project to preserve survivors’ stories.

The government said it would continuously assess the effectiveness of the programme and consider further research and support where necessary.

READ ALSO:

• Alleged Coup Plot: DSS Arraigns Five Over Concealment of Ex-Gov Timipre Sylva
• MURIC Commends NSCIA Over Appointment of Abbas Jimoh as Spokesperson
• Presidency Dismisses Allegation Against Gbajabiamila, Says Accuser Is an ‘Impostor’ Facing Trial

Campaign groups welcomed the apology as a historic and long-overdue acknowledgment of the suffering endured by thousands of families. However, many organisations stressed that the announcement should be the beginning—not the end—of efforts to address the lasting impact of historical forced adoption.

Several survivor groups have renewed calls for financial compensation, easier access to adoption records and expanded therapeutic services, arguing that many victims continue to live with unresolved grief, trauma and identity issues decades after being separated from their families.

The apology applies specifically to historical adoption practices in England. The government noted that Scotland and Wales have already issued formal apologies, while Northern Ireland is establishing a statutory public inquiry into Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses, where similar abuses are alleged to have occurred.

Although officials acknowledged that some coercive adoption practices extended beyond 1976, they stressed that today’s adoption system operates under stronger legal safeguards, judicial oversight and clear consent requirements designed to protect both children and birth parents.

The government encouraged anyone affected by historical forced adoption to seek assistance through organisations such as Family Connect, CoramBAAF, NHS services and specialist counselling providers.

For many survivors, the apology represents a significant step towards national recognition of a painful chapter in British history, offering hope that greater support and accountability will follow.

UK Apologises for Historic Forced Adoption, Unveils £4 Million Support Package for Survivors