Birthright funding restriction

Summary#

This bill would stop federal funds from being used to carry out Executive Order 14160 or any successor order, regulation, or policy. Its stated goal is to protect birthright citizenship as the bill’s findings describe it under the 14th Amendment and prior Supreme Court precedent. The bill does not change the wording of the 14th Amendment or the immigration laws; it only blocks federal money for carrying out the named executive action.

  • Main change: Bars appropriation or other availability of federal funds to implement Executive Order 14160 or any successor action.
  • Scope: Applies to departments and agencies of the federal government that would use funds to carry out the order.
  • Legal basis cited: The bill cites the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark to support the claim that birthright citizenship cannot be revoked by executive action.
  • What it does not do: It does not itself amend citizenship law or the Immigration and Nationality Act. It is a funding restriction, not a substantive change to statutory or constitutional text.
  • Timing: The bill text does not set a start date beyond becoming law; it would take effect when enacted.

What it means for you#

  • Federal agencies and employees: Agencies must not use appropriated or otherwise available federal funds to carry out Executive Order 14160 or any successor order, regulation, or policy if this bill becomes law. Agencies would need to stop activities that implement that order or reallocate tasks to activities not covered by the ban.
  • People born in the United States: If the funding ban takes effect, the federal government would be blocked from using federal money to implement the specified executive action. This would likely limit federal efforts to deny birthright citizenship under that order. The bill itself does not create new citizenship rights beyond existing law.
  • Parents of U.S.-born children (including immigrant parents): The bill seeks to prevent federal funding being used to carry out an executive action the bill says would deny or limit recognition of citizenship for some U.S.-born children. The bill does not change immigration status or benefits by itself.
  • Congress (appropriations process): The bill places a statutory restriction on how appropriated funds may be used. Appropriations committees and agencies would need to consider the restriction when drafting and spending budgets.
  • State and local governments: The bill’s funding ban targets federal funds and federal agencies. It does not directly bind state or local governments.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text and supplied material do not include a fiscal note or cost estimate.
  • Possible effects (not estimated in the material): this prohibition could create administrative work for agencies to document compliance and could result in litigation. Those are possibilities the bill text does not quantify.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to prevent a federal executive action from changing how birthright citizenship is treated in practice. Based on the bill’s findings, supporters may argue:

  • The bill protects the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that people born in the U.S. are citizens.
  • It relies on the Supreme Court decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark as legal precedent for birthright citizenship.
  • It prevents executive action from effectively revoking birthright citizenship by forbidding federal funds to implement such an action.
  • It aims to preserve existing federal law and settled legal interpretation on citizenship without changing statutes.

Opponents' View#

One can identify several concerns or questions based on the bill’s design and text:

  • The bill does not include a fiscal estimate or explain how compliance would be monitored or enforced across agencies.
  • It does not change underlying statutory or constitutional law; opponents might note that a funding ban may not be the only way to address disputes about the order and could leave some legal uncertainty.
  • The bill could prompt legal challenges about whether Congress can block the funding for specific executive actions in this manner, though the text itself does not discuss litigation.
  • It is unclear how the ban would interact with any actions by nonfederal actors or with agency uses of funds that are not clearly “for” carrying out the specified order.