Trump’s State Department Moves to Require Parents to Prove Citizenship for Child Passports

Breaking

The State Department has drafted new guidance that would require parents to prove their own citizenship or immigration status before the government issues a passport to their child, according to reporting that surfaced Sept. 1. Under current rules, a parent applying for a child’s passport only has to establish parentage and present a photo ID, checking a box to attest to citizenship without submitting supporting documents. The draft rule would instead require a valid U.S. passport or birth certificate as proof of citizenship, or an I-94 arrival record or green card as proof of lawful immigration status.

The proposal implements an executive order President Trump signed Aug. 6 aimed at curbing “birth tourism,” the practice of foreign nationals traveling to the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children gain automatic citizenship. State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said the change reflects the administration’s broader approach to citizenship policy: “President Trump has been unequivocal that this Administration will protect the meaning and value of American citizenship, full stop, and that includes making sure our passport adjudication process fully reflects that standard.”

Details & Background

The Aug. 6 order came weeks after the Supreme Court, in Trump v. Barbara, struck down Trump’s original and far broader January 2025 executive order that sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who were undocumented or on temporary visas. The Supreme Court’s June 30 ruling reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee applies to children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Rather than appeal further, the administration issued two narrower orders: one identifying specific historical exceptions to birthright citizenship, and a second directing the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to develop tools — including the passport rule — to stop birth tourism specifically.

The administration points to enforcement numbers to justify the broader crackdown, citing more than 3 million deportations, denaturalization proceedings filed against 88 people, and the termination of federal benefits for 1.4 million people living in the country illegally. Trump has described citizenship as embodying, in the order’s own language, “a sacred bond between the American people and their Nation.”

Reactions

The passport rule is already facing legal pushback as part of a broader challenge to the Aug. 6 order. Attorneys pursuing a class-action lawsuit have asked a federal judge in Maryland to block the underlying order before it can be implemented. At a hearing days before the passport guidance became public, Judge Deborah Boardman voiced skepticism about the administration’s approach, calling it “unprecedented,” though Justice Department lawyers countered that the legal challenge was premature since the rule hadn’t been finalized.

Immigration attorneys have separately raised concerns that documentation requirements aimed at birth tourism could sweep up ordinary American parents who may not have easy access to their own birth certificates or updated identification, particularly in cases involving adoption, surrogacy, or parents born abroad to U.S. citizens. The State Department has not yet said when the rule would take effect or whether it will be revised before finalization.

Why This Matters to You

If adopted, the rule would change passport paperwork for every American parent seeking a passport for a child for the first time — not just the birth-tourism cases the administration says it’s targeting. Families who don’t have quick access to a birth certificate or valid photo ID could face new delays.

The move is also a signal that the administration intends to keep pressing on birthright citizenship through narrower, more legally defensible measures after its broadest attempt was struck down by the Supreme Court. Watch the Maryland court case for an early read on whether this second approach survives judicial review any better than the first.