The Brief

President Trump is trying to end birthright citizenship, the legal principle enshrined in the Constitution that automatically makes anyone born within the U.S. or its territories a citizen.

It's a move that Trump first proposed during his first term and one that most legal experts agree he cannot make unilaterally.

Indeed, within days of signing his executive order on Monday, Trump's administration was hit with at least four separate lawsuits from coalitions opposed to it, including nearly two dozen state attorneys general, a group of pregnant mothers and immigrants' rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

"Birthright citizenship is guaranteed in our Constitution and is absolutely central to what America stands for," said lead attorney Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "Denying citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil is illegal, profoundly cruel, and contrary to our values as a country."

Asked about legal challenges to the birthright citizenship order — which were widely expected — Trump acknowledged as he signed it that it could be challenged but said, "We think we have good grounds" to move ahead. 

"We're the only country in the world that does this" with birthright citizenship, he said.

That's not true: Dozens of countries, including Canada, Mexico and many South American nations, offer birthright citizenship.

Here's what to know about the principle, and what it would mean for the U.S. to end it — or at least try.

What does the Constitution say? 

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says 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 amendment, which was ratified in 1868, sought to extend citizenship to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War.

"When birthright citizenship came about in the 14th Amendment, there weren't unauthorized immigrants in the United States like there are today," Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, told NPR in December.

But it's been applied to immigration for well over a century, dating back to the landmark 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

How has the clause been interpreted? 

"For over a century, since a young Chinese American cook from San Francisco named Wong Kim Ark won his case at the Supreme Court, birthright citizenship for all — including babies born to immigrants — has been a cornerstone of U.S. democracy," said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus.

Wong, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, was barred from entering the U.S. — under the Chinese Exclusion Act — while returning from an overseas trip in 1890.

In a 6-2 decision, the court ruled that because Wong was born in the U.S. and his parents were not "employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China," the 14th Amendment makes him a U.S. citizen.

A 1904 portrait of Wong Kim Ark, who the Supreme Court ruled was a U.S. citizen in a landmark birthright citizenship case.

(

National Archives/Interim Archives/Getty Images

)

"The case clarified that anyone born in the United States was a citizen under the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of the parent's immigration status, and the case has been established precedent for more than 125 years," according to the American Immigration Council.

That decision established the parameters of jus soli, or birthplace-based citizenship (as opposed to the ancestry-based form of birthright citizenship, known as jus sanguinis).

And the Supreme Court has reaffirmed it in the years since — including in the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe, which held that states cannot deny students a free public education based on their immigration status.

What exactly does Trump want to change?

Trump's executive order asserts that children born to parents without legal status in the U.S. are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and are, therefore, not entitled to U.S. citizenship.

The order also extends to children born to parents with temporary legal status in the U.S., such as foreign students or tourists.

Trump, who campaigned on cracking down on immigration, is not the first politician to call for revoking birthright citizenship.

"Starting in 1991, Congress has been introducing bills to end birthright citizenship," Gelatt said. "None of those have passed into law."

A draft of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, outlining the rights and privileges of American citizenship. It was ratified in 1868.

(

Hulton Archive

/

Getty Images

)

Can birthright citizenship be revoked?

"Revoking this right would require amending the U.S. Constitution, or for the U.S. Supreme Court to diverge from centuries of established precedent and legal principles that date back to before the founding of this country," according to the American Immigration Council. 

Congress could pass a new constitutional amendment, but it would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and ratification by three-quarters of states.

As NPR has reported, a small but vocal group of conservative legal scholars has argued for years that the 14th Amendment has long been misread and was not originally intended to give citizenship to the children of visitors. (During his first administration, Trump took steps aimed at cracking down on what he called "birth tourism.")

"One problem, they believe, is that courts have misconstrued what the writers of the 14th Amendment intended with the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and that the amendment's framers understood that the children of illegal aliens, like their parents, owed their loyalty to a nation that wasn't the United States," the National Constitution Center explains.

Some also believe the Wong Ark Kim decision was limited because his parents were in the U.S. legally at the time of his birth.

But most legal scholars do not think that birthright citizenship can be revoked at all — let alone by executive order.

"It will be litigated immediately and its prospects of surviving those court fights are slim, even before a Supreme Court stacked with conservative justices and Trump appointees," writes Thomas Wolf, director of democracy initiatives at the Brennan Center for Justice.

How many people would be affected?

The Pew Research Center estimates that 1.3 million U.S.-born adults are children of immigrants without legal status, according to 2022 data.

The number of babies born in the U.S. to immigrants who entered the country illegally has declined in recent years: It was about 250,000 in 2016, a significant drop from a peak of roughly 390,000 in 2007, according to Pew.

But, as NPR has reported, immigrant rights advocates worry Trump's order could affect multiple generations of children.

"As children born to unauthorized immigrants were themselves treated as unauthorized immigrants, that would grow the unauthorized immigrant population in the country," said Gelatt, of the Migration Policy Institute. "And we could see even grandchildren of today's unauthorized immigrants being born without U.S. citizenship."

Data from the Migration Policy Institute suggests that by 2050, there would be 4.7 million unauthorized immigrants born in the U.S. — 1 million of whom would have two U.S.-born parents.

"What we see in countries where there is not birthright citizenship is that, you know, there are multigenerational groups of people who don't have full membership," Gelatt said. "They don't have a full say in the governments that rule over them. And in some cases, people can also end up being stateless."

Beyond the individual impact, Gelatt says the end of birthright citizenship could have repercussions for American society as a whole.

"We know that when people have legal status and the right to work legally in the United States and full membership in the country, that helps them to integrate, to thrive and to contribute more to our country, to our economy and our democracy."
Copyright 2025 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.