Trump Signs New Executive Orders Targeting Birthright Citizenship, ‘Birth Tourism’ - Newstrends
Connect with us

International

Trump Signs New Executive Orders Targeting Birthright Citizenship, ‘Birth Tourism’

Published

on

US passport policy: Trump administration considers new checks on parents’ citizenship status

Trump Signs New Executive Orders Targeting Birthright Citizenship, ‘Birth Tourism’

President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on August 6, 2026, aimed at narrowing birthright citizenship and blocking the practice of “birth tourism” — just weeks after the Supreme Court struck down his broader attempt to end automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The new orders represent a more targeted approach to restricting who qualifies for U.S. citizenship at birth, focusing on specific categories of foreign nationals rather than attempting a blanket ban.

The first executive order targets birth tourism, which the White House defines as foreign nationals entering the United States on nonimmigrant visas with the primary purpose of giving birth on U.S. soil. The order directs the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to deny or revoke visas and travel authorizations for individuals suspected of engaging in birth tourism, block entry or authorize deportation of foreign nationals participating in or planning birth tourism, and take action against operators — both in the U.S. and abroad — who organize or facilitate birth tourism schemes. The White House accused birth tourism operators of deceiving foreign nationals through advertisements encouraging them to travel to the U.S. to give birth, arguing that these schemes “undermine” the integrity of the U.S. immigration system. Exceptions apply for foreign nationals entering on humanitarian grounds or when their entry serves the national interest.

The second executive order expands the definitions of individuals whose U.S.-born children would not qualify for automatic citizenship. Under the new order, children are ineligible if their parents fall into any of several expanded categories. These include foreign government employees such as diplomats, consular officers, and employees of foreign governments or international organizations with immunity; designated Foreign Terrorist Organization members as well as “specially designated global terrorists”; individuals who engaged in fraudulent acts to obtain U.S. citizenship; “alien enemies” considered enemy aliens under U.S. law; and children born through commercial surrogacy arrangements or commercial transactions. The order also clarifies that children born in U.S. territories or territorial waters where federal law does not grant birthright citizenship are excluded from automatic recognition. Federal agencies including the State Department, Justice Department, Homeland Security, and Social Security Administration must issue implementation guidance within 30 days.

READ ALSO:

These executive orders come after a major legal setback for the administration. On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to reject Trump’s earlier executive order — signed on his first day back in office in January 2025 — which sought to deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants or temporary residents. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, stating that “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land’ … We keep that promise today.” The Court upheld the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The ruling reaffirmed the precedent set by the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established that virtually all children born on U.S. soil are citizens — with only narrow exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats or enemy occupying forces.

Speaking from the Oval Office as he signed the new orders, Trump described the Supreme Court decision as “very unfortunate.” He stated, “We had a very unfortunate decision in the Supreme Court concerning birthright. It was close, but a very, very unfortunate decision. So we’re making adjustments because it’s very unfair.” Trump also called the previous situation “a disgrace,” arguing that wealthy individuals are building businesses around birthright citizenship and exploiting the system. He remarked that “Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it was supposed to work.” Following the Supreme Court defeat, Trump had announced he would seek to address birthright citizenship through Congress. The new executive orders represent a shift to a more targeted administrative strategy.

There are no official government statistics on birth tourism. However, a 2020 analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies — which supports lower levels of immigration — estimated that between 20,000 and 25,000 women entered the U.S. for birth tourism between 2016 and 2017. Trump has claimed the number could be much higher, stating that “hundreds of thousands” of children may be obtaining citizenship through birth tourism annually.

The new executive orders are expected to face legal challenges, similar to the previous effort. Constitutional scholars have noted that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has long been interpreted broadly, and any attempt to narrow its application — even in specific categories — is likely to be tested in court. The administration argues that the new orders are more narrowly tailored and therefore constitutional, focusing on specific scenarios rather than attempting a blanket denial of citizenship.

In summary, two new executive orders were signed August 6, 2026, following a Supreme Court defeat on a broader birthright citizenship ban. Birth tourism is targeted, with foreign nationals entering on nonimmigrant visas to give birth facing possible visa denials, entry blocks, or deportation. Expanded ineligibility now includes children of foreign government employees, terrorist organization members, and those who committed citizenship fraud. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the administration’s earlier order on June 30, 2026, and legal challenges are expected as the new orders test the limits of the 14th Amendment.

Trump Signs New Executive Orders Targeting Birthright Citizenship, ‘Birth Tourism’

Loading

International

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

Published

on

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials
Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

The United States has refused to issue visas to some members of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s delegation, including members of his communications team, ahead of his planned appearance at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.

Iranian state media reported the visa refusals on Monday, September 21, 2026, while confirming that the United States has authorised the core Iranian delegation to travel to New York for the high-level UN gathering.

Pezeshkian is expected to address the 81st UN General Assembly on Wednesday, making his planned visit the highest-level Iranian presence in the United States since the conflict involving Iran, Israel and the US escalated earlier this year.

Iran’s state news agency, IRNA, reported that the Trump administration had denied visas to certain members of Pezeshkian’s high-level delegation, including personnel responsible for communications.

The Mehr news agency also reported the visa denials, citing a spokesperson for the Iranian presidency.

The decision does not amount to a blanket refusal of entry to the Iranian delegation. The United States has authorised the core delegation, which includes President Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, to attend the UN General Assembly.

The distinction is significant because the annual UN gathering brings together representatives of member states at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York, which is hosted by the United States.

The current arrangement follows restrictions imposed by Washington on the Iranian delegation during last year’s General Assembly. UN records show that Iran previously raised concerns over visa delays and denials affecting members of its delegation and argued that such restrictions hindered its participation in UN activities.

For this year’s meeting, Washington has also imposed restrictions on the movement and activities of the Iranian delegation while it is in the United States.

READ ALSO:

The State Department has said the delegation will face restrictions on its movements and on the purchase of certain luxury goods and other items. The measures come amid the absence of normal diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States and the continuing conflict between the two countries.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left Iran on Sunday for the United States, travelling through Qatar.

The Iranian government has also used Qatar as an intermediary in communicating with Washington over the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for global oil and gas shipments.

Tehran has conveyed conditions for reopening the waterway, according to Iranian officials, while the United States has imposed measures against Iranian ports.

The Strait of Hormuz has become a major issue in the wider conflict because of its importance to international energy supplies.

Pezeshkian’s expected appearance at the UN General Assembly comes at a particularly sensitive moment in relations between Tehran and Washington.

The conflict has also become a major issue for this year’s UN gathering, with world leaders expected to discuss the Middle East, the war involving Iran, the conflict in Ukraine, the situation in Gaza and other international crises.

The Iranian president’s presence in New York could provide an opportunity for diplomatic contacts on the sidelines of the General Assembly, although the two governments remain sharply divided over the conflict and other issues.

US President Donald Trump is also attending the UN General Assembly this week and is expected to address the gathering.

Trump has indicated that he remains open to discussions involving Iran, while Tehran has continued to communicate through intermediaries.

The visa dispute therefore adds another layer to already strained US-Iran relations, but it has not prevented Iran’s president and foreign minister from attending the UN meeting.

For now, Pezeshkian’s scheduled appearance means Iran will have senior-level representation at the 81st UN General Assembly, despite Washington’s refusal to issue visas to some members of his wider delegation.

The immediate focus will be on Pezeshkian’s address, Iran’s position on the ongoing conflict and whether the UN gathering creates opportunities for further diplomatic engagement between Tehran and Washington.

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

Loading

Continue Reading

International

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

Published

on

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

CNN, MS NOW and Politico have filed a federal lawsuit against the administration of US President Donald Trump, challenging the decision to revoke their journalists’ access to the White House.

The three major news organisations are asking a federal court in Washington, DC, to intervene after the Trump administration barred their reporters from the White House grounds and deactivated or confiscated their press credentials.

The organisations argue that the administration’s action violated their First Amendment press rights and the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections, alleging that their access was withdrawn because of dissatisfaction with their reporting.

The case was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, with the media organisations seeking expedited consideration of their challenge and an order restoring their access to the White House.

The lawsuit names President Donald Trump, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House spokesperson Steven Cheung and Secret Service Director Sean Curran as defendants.

The legal action followed Trump’s decision to exclude the three organisations from the White House after he accused them of publishing what he described as “fake news” about his administration.

Trump has argued that journalists remain free to report on him but that the administration is not required to provide White House access to every news organisation.

The president also defended the decision on social media, where he characterised the affected outlets as a threat to national security. The reports on the lawsuit did not indicate that the administration had presented evidence publicly establishing such a threat.

The dispute escalated on Saturday, September 19, when reporters working for CNN, MS NOW and Politico were turned away from the White House complex.

Their press access was reportedly deactivated or their credentials confiscated, preventing them from covering activities inside the presidential complex in the usual manner.

The organisations subsequently warned that the White House decision raised broader questions about whether a presidential administration could deny access to journalists because of disagreement with their reporting.

READ ALSO:

In their court challenge, the outlets are expected to argue that the government cannot use access to public officials and government facilities as a means of punishing or influencing the content of news coverage.

The case comes as the Trump administration has significantly changed the way White House press access is managed.

The administration has increasingly exercised greater control over which journalists attend certain presidential events, while also expanding access for reporters from organisations it considers more favourable or less represented in traditional White House press coverage.

The latest dispute, however, concerns the removal of access from three established national news organisations at the same time.

The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) has criticised the exclusion of the outlets and raised concerns about the implications for press access and government transparency.

Other media organisations and press-freedom groups have also expressed concern over the decision, arguing that government officials should not determine access based on whether they approve of particular news coverage.

The White House, on the other hand, has maintained that the administration has authority to determine access to the White House and has repeatedly accused some mainstream news organisations of inaccurate or unfair reporting.

The legal battle also has implications beyond the three organisations involved because federal courts have previously considered disputes between the executive branch and news organisations over access to the president.

One prominent case involved CNN reporter Jim Acosta during Trump’s first administration.

In 2018, the White House revoked Acosta’s press credentials following a confrontation during a presidential news conference. CNN challenged the decision in court, and a federal judge ordered the temporary restoration of his access.

The Trump administration has also been involved in a more recent dispute with the Associated Press.

The administration restricted AP’s access after the news agency declined to adopt Trump’s preferred terminology for the Gulf of Mexico. A federal judge later ordered the administration to restore the AP’s access in certain circumstances, although subsequent litigation resulted in distinctions between generally accessible areas and more restricted presidential events.

The current lawsuit involving CNN, MS NOW and Politico raises related but distinct questions about the government’s authority to control press access.

A central issue is expected to be whether the administration can exclude news organisations from access that is otherwise made available to members of the White House press corps because of disagreement with their reporting.

Another issue is the extent to which the First Amendment limits government decisions affecting journalists’ access, particularly when the alleged reason for exclusion is connected to the content or viewpoint of their reporting.

The media organisations are also challenging the process used to revoke their access, arguing that they were not given adequate notice or an opportunity to contest the decision before their credentials were withdrawn.

The case has already affected White House media arrangements beyond routine presidential coverage.

CNN had been scheduled to provide the television pool feed for Trump’s Monday trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, but the assignment was removed from the White House press schedule following the access dispute.

The White House press pool is important because participating organisations provide shared coverage, photographs, video and other material that can be used by news organisations that cannot send their own journalists to every presidential event.

The lawsuit therefore places questions of press freedom, government transparency and presidential control over media access at the centre of another federal court dispute involving the Trump administration.

For the three organisations, the immediate objective is restoration of access to the White House and the ability of their journalists to resume reporting from the presidential complex.

For the administration, the dispute involves its stated authority to determine who receives access to the White House and how that access is organised.

The court’s handling of the case could provide further guidance on the constitutional limits surrounding White House press credentials, particularly where access decisions are alleged to be connected to the content of journalists’ reporting.

Until the court rules, the competing claims remain disputed. The lawsuit itself does not establish that the administration violated the Constitution, while the White House’s allegations against the news organisations remain the administration’s stated position rather than findings by a court.

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

Loading

Continue Reading

International

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Published

on

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse
18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Eighteen suspects accused of involvement in the 2021 assassination of former Haitian President Jovenel Moise have been transferred from Haiti to the United States to face trial.

US officials said the suspects were transported to Florida on Sunday, as American authorities continue their prosecution of people allegedly connected to the plot.

Federal prosecutor Jason Reding Quinones said the suspects were flown from Haiti on a military aircraft to face proceedings in the Southern District of Florida.

He said US authorities had so far indicted 30 people in connection with the assassination and warned that the prosecutions were not over.

Among those transferred was Joseph Felix Badio, a former anti-corruption official with Haiti’s Ministry of Justice who has been identified as a major suspect in the investigation.

Haitian government and police sources said the other suspects included Colombian nationals who were allegedly part of the group involved in the operation.

READ ALSO:

Colombian Nationals Among Suspects

Colombia’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that 17 of its citizens had been transferred from Haiti to the United States.

The ministry said the Colombian government was monitoring the development but had not participated in the decision or process that led to the transfer.

Moise was killed at his private residence in Port-au-Prince on July 7, 2021. Investigators said a group of about 20 Colombian military-trained mercenaries had been hired in connection with the operation.

The president’s security detail came under scrutiny after failing to prevent the attack.

In May, four men were convicted in a Miami federal court over charges connected to the plot, including conspiracy to kill or kidnap Moise and providing material support for the operation. They could face life imprisonment.

US prosecutors said the men were linked to CTU Security, a Florida-based private security company, and had allegedly been attracted by the prospect of lucrative contracts after Moise was removed from power.

The assassination plunged Haiti further into political and security turmoil. The country has since struggled with gang violence and remains without a president, while preparations continue for elections scheduled for December, subject to security conditions.

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Loading

Continue Reading

Trending