US Agencies Prepare to Enforce Trump’s Order Ending Birthright Citizenship: CNN

Tue Jul 29 2025
icon-facebook icon-twitter icon-whatsapp

Key points

  • State Department, Social Security Administration issue guidance documents
  • Documents offer a stark glimpse into how Trump’s executive order will be implemented
  • Newly released guidance is meaningless: Immigration rights advocates

ISLAMABAD:  After months of avoiding details regarding a divisive plan to end birthright citizenship, US President Donald Trump’s administration is rolling out a series of new documents that offer a stark glimpse into how it would implement an executive order that upends the century-old understanding about the benefits of being born in the United States.

According to a CNN report, the trove of documents from half a dozen federal agencies in recent days are a direct result of a Supreme Court (SC) decision last month that permitted the administration to develop plans for ending birthright citizenship – even though the effort has once again been placed on hold.

Under those guidance documents, parents of newborns – including US citizens – might be required to jump through additional hoops to verify their own immigration status to obtain a passport or Social Security number for their children.

“Immigration status”

Among the documents made public in recent days is one from the State Department that explains how officials would be required to “request original proof of parental citizenship or immigration status” to proceed with processing a passport application. “This information will be necessary to determine if those applying for a passport are US citizens,” the three-page document reads, according to CNN.

The Social Security Administration issued similar guidance as well. Other guidance documents from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Department of Agriculture lay out how those agencies would go about verifying the citizenship of children for various social services.

“Legal questions”

The agencies appear to be leaning on a four-page document issued by the Department of Homeland Security’s US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which says it’s meant to “address legal questions relevant to the implementation” of Trump’s order. That memo mostly contains definitions, including ones on who would be covered by the policy and who would be exempted.

Among those exempted from the president’s policy, according to the USCIS memo, are children of asylees and refugees. Until now, it wasn’t clear whether the Trump administration would subject those groups of non-citizens to the order.

Signed by Trump on January 20, the executive order “PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP” said that the federal government will not “issue documents recognising United States citizenship” to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully, or were in the states lawfully, but temporarily.

Several rulings issued by federal courts this month have ensured that that policy will not take effect for now, and the guidance documents acknowledge that reality.

“However, the government is preparing to implement the EO in the event that it is permitted to go into effect,” CNN cited the USCIS memo as saying.

Immigration rights advocates who have taken Trump to court over his order stressed on Monday that the newly released guidance is meaningless so long as the courts continue to block enforcement of the policy.

“Nothing in this guidance remotely changes the bottom line that this executive order is unconstitutional and cruel. Everyone in the country remains protected by our class action, and we will keep fighting to ensure this order never goes into effect,” said Cody Wofsy, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which convinced a federal judge in New Hampshire to block Trump’s order via a class-action lawsuit, CNN reported.

Practical concerns

The guidance speaks to some of the practical concerns raised by Supreme Court justices during oral arguments in the birthright case in May, including those who ultimately sided with Trump on the issue of nationwide injunctions.

icon-facebook icon-twitter icon-whatsapp