Trump Signs Orders on Birthright Citizenship, White House Ballroom Dispute Heads to Supreme Court

Why it matters locally: The executive orders on birthright citizenship could have an impact on Virginia's diverse immigrant communities and those working within international organizations, given the state's proximity to Washington D.C. and its substantial diplomatic presence. Additionally, the White House ballroom dispute, while focused on federal property, could draw attention from historic preservation organizations and legal professionals in Virginia due to its implications for federal property and congressional oversight.

---

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order titled “Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order seeks to narrow the availability of birthright citizenship, which grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States. This order follows a Supreme Court decision last month that struck down a previous order aimed at broader restrictions on birthright citizenship. Legal challenges are anticipated for the new Aug. 6 order, with arguments expected that its restrictions extend beyond the specific exceptions to citizenship outlined in the Supreme Court’s prior ruling. Trump also signed a second order, “Ending Birth Tourism,” which addresses the practice of pregnant women traveling to the United States to give birth, ensuring U.S. citizenship for their children. The initial executive order to restrict birthright citizenship, signed in January 2025, barred automatic U.S. citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants or those temporarily in the United States. In the case *Trump v. Barbara*, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, found the January 2025 order unconstitutional. Roberts cited the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which grants citizenship to anyone “born … in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” noting its broad scope. He highlighted a history of birthright citizenship in English law pre-American Revolution and in early U.S. history, concluding that the 14th Amendment’s drafters intended to adopt this rule, “with its broad reach and narrow exceptions” for “the children of foreign ministers and members of” some “19th-century Indian tribes.” The executive order signed Thursday expands upon these exceptions. It applies not only to children of ambassadors, or “foreign ministers,” but also to children of other foreign citizens in the U.S. This includes employees of foreign embassies, foreign government employees in their official capacity, and employees of international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank. The 1898 Supreme Court case of *Wong Kim Ark*, concerning a person born in California to Chinese national parents, suggested that children of hostile enemies occupying the United States would not qualify for birthright citizenship. Trump’s new order excludes from birthright citizenship any child whose parent is designated an “alien enemy” under federal laws. This definition includes individuals identified as members of groups such as the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and the New Irish Republican Army. Additionally, Trump’s order applies to children of parents who “engage[d] in a commercial transaction to ensure that the person’s mother is present in the United States, or a territory of the United States, to give birth.” It also applies to children born in U.S. territories or territorial waters “where citizenship is not conferred by Federal statute.” Federal law currently grants U.S. citizenship to babies born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but not American Samoa. A bill recently introduced in Congress aims to end birthright citizenship in these territories starting Jan. 1, 2027. The order regarding “birth tourism” states that “[p]articipants in birth tourism schemes abuse” the availability of temporary nonimmigrant visas “to establish a permanent foothold in the United States by securing the advantage of citizenship for their children and then potentially for themselves.” Existing State Department regulations direct consular officers to deny visa applications for individuals they have “reason to believe [are] traveling for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child.” ### White House Ballroom Dispute In separate news, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday upheld a federal district court ruling that temporarily blocked construction of the White House ballroom. The appellate panel permitted underground construction to continue, citing federal government arguments regarding security needs. Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia concluded that the Trump administration likely lacks the authority to construct the ballroom. They stated that Congress holds “full constitutional control over federal property and the funding of its maintenance and development,” and Congress has not authorized funding for the ballroom’s construction. The judges also noted that proceeding with construction would inflict “irreversible harms” on members of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the organization that filed the lawsuit, as well as on “the design of President’s Park, the White House, and the surrounding area.” Millett and Garcia placed their order on a 14-day hold, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. The president has indicated his intention to do so. Judge Neomi Rao dissented, arguing that the National Trust for Historic Preservation lacked legal standing to sue. She also contended that the president possesses the authority to make improvements to his residence, which she suggested likely includes the ballroom.