Trump says birthright citizenship was designed for children of slaves
In an interview with Politico, Trump defended the executive order he signed on his first day back in the White House in January 2025
US President Donald Trump has argued that the principle of birthright citizenship was introduced to protect the children of enslaved people, and not, as he claimed, for “wealthy foreigners” travelling to the country to give birth.
In an interview with Politico, Trump defended the executive order he signed on his first day back in the White House in January 2025, which sought to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States. He warned that it would be “devastating” if the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against his administration.
According to Trump, the legal basis for birthright citizenship “had everything to do with the babies of slaves”, dating back to the Civil War era. “That case was not meant for some rich person coming from another country … and all of a sudden their whole family becomes United States citizens,” he said, adding that he believed judges “understand it, too”.
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 shortly after the Civil War, established that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”. It was intended to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved people and others born on American soil.
After Trump signed his order in January, the administration declared that babies born in the US more than 30 days after the inauguration would no longer automatically qualify for citizenship. The move prompted a wave of legal challenges, and several federal courts initially blocked its enforcement.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that lower federal courts did not have the power to issue broad injunctions to halt an executive order nationwide, clearing the way for the justices themselves to examine whether Trump’s directive is constitutional.
Trump has justified his attempt to end birthright citizenship on economic grounds, arguing the US “cannot afford to house tens of millions of people”.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the coming months, and the ruling could have far-reaching consequences for immigration policy and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
With agency inputs