Fact Check: Trump's children will not be affected by his birthright citizenship executive order
U.S. President Donald Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship for children born to immigrants in the country illegally and people on temporary status would have resulted in four of his five children being deported, as they were born to immigrant mothers.
Rating:
What's True:
Four of Trump's five children were born to immigrant mothers. Trump has proposed a plan ending birthright citizenship specifically for children of immigrants in the country illegally and for people with temporary visa status residing in the U.S.
What's False:
However, Trump's children were not born to mothers with questionable immigration statuses, and their father is an American citizen. Thus, they are not affected by the proposal.
In late June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to restrict the power of federal courts to limit President Donald Trump's executive orders, a decision centered around the his order on birthright citizenship. This was seen as a victory for the Trump administration in its attempts to implement such a policy. Trump has long said he wants to end birthright citizenship and in January 2025 he issued an executive order to that effect — which faced immediate legal challenges.
As we have reported previously, birthright citizenship stipulates that all people born within the boundaries of the United States are considered U.S. citizens from birth, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of their parents.
After the Supreme Court ruling, many people online pointed out the irony of Trump limiting birthright citizenship, given that four of his five children were born to immigrant mothers. Trump's first and third wives — Ivana Trump and Melania Trump — were not citizens at the time they gave birth to Trump's children Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Barron Trump.
(Reddit user u/QuaziBonzai)
While it is true that the mothers of four of Trump's children were not citizens at the time of those children's births, Trump himself was an American citizen. This alone is enough to ensure that his children have American citizenship. Ivana Trump had a strong legal standing to obtain permanent residency, and Melania Trump — by her own account — already had a green card. As such, we rate this claim as mostly false.
However, as we noted before, determining the legal status of an immigrant prior to achieving naturalization or permanent residency is a complex issue, as is determining the legal status of Trump's wives at the time they gave birth. At the beginning of those marriages, Trump was a real estate developer and not as entrenched in politics, so his wives' immigration statuses did not attract attention.
Trump's January 2025 executive order specifically calls for ending birthright citizenship in two cases, for mothers who are in the country illegally or have temporary status in the country. It states birthright citizenship does not apply:
(1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or
(2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.
Ivana Trump, a native Czechoslovakian, moved to New York around 1976 and married Donald Trump in April 1977. Their first son, Donald Trump Jr., was born in December 1977. The Trumps likely settled any lingering immigration matters during the time between their marriage his birth. However, even if Ivana Trump had not yet become a permanent resident in the U.S., her children would still be entitled to citizenship under Trump's plan because they were born in the country to an American citizen father.
Similarly, Slovenia-native Melania Knauss Trump moved to New York City in 1996, although her immigration status came under scrutiny. She had a career as a model and, according to her immigration attorney, entered the country on a short-term visit visa, followed by an H-1B work visa which allowed her to work as a model.
The lawyer noted that Melania "self-sponsored herself for a green card as a model of 'extraordinary ability,' and on March 19, 2001, she was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident." She married Trump in January 2005. Their son, Barron Trump, was born in March 2006, more than a year after the wedding and within the U.S. to an American citizen father.
Per our previous coverage, Trump's proposition was widely criticized as incongruent with the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment granting birthright citizenship to all people born inside the U.S. While it's true that the executive order could be considered hypocritical given that Trump's children were born to immigrant mothers, because Trump was married to those mothers at the time of the births, his wives had stronger legal status. One already had a green card by her own account and the other could have obtained a green card through her spouse. We have noted before that both women were already of above-average means and married to a business mogul, likely aiding their ability to gain legal status.
The executive order also states the policy would "apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order." Trump's children were all born decades before the order was issued.
Even if the mothers' immigration statuses were called into question and even if Trump was not married to them at the time of the children's births, all of Trump's children have an American father. Thus, Trump's executive order against birthright citizenship would not affect the statuses of his own children.
Snopes' archives contributed to this report.
Garcia, Arturo. "FACT CHECK: Did Melania Trump's Parents Arrive in the U.S. Through 'Chain Migration'?" Snopes, 8 Feb. 2018, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/melania-trump-parents-chain-migration-meme/. Accessed 2 July 2025.
LaCapria, Kim. "Would Donald Trump Deport His Children?" Snopes, 20 Aug. 2015, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/donald-trump-children-immigrant/. Accessed 2 July 2025.
Neuman, Scott. "What Is a Universal Injunction and How Did the Supreme Court Limit Its Use?" NPR, 27 Jun. 2025. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2025/06/27/nx-s1-5448821/universal-injunction-supreme-court-executive-order-birthright. Accessed 2 July 2025.
"Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship." The White House, 21 Jan. 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/. Accessed 2 July 2025.
"What's next for Birthright Citizenship after the Supreme Court's Ruling." AP News, 27 Jun. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-supreme-court-next-steps-11ce3a0dfe3a30c0ee1b67b92a322f01. Accessed 2 July 2025.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
‘Big Beautiful Bill' Raises Threat of Default for Litigation Asset-Backed Securities
Legislation tucked inside President Donald Trump's landmark tax bill could make it difficult for asset-backed securities tied to litigation funding to make timely interest payments, according to a note by Kroll Bond Rating Agency. The Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act, which is part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act currently in the Senate, would impose substantial new taxes on profits from third-party litigation funding, says the June 27 note by authors including Joanne DeSimone and Zara Shirazi.


Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
Iran won't attack the US but will continue nuclear development, senior Iranian official says
Iran launched a missile attack on the American Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar following the U.S. bombing. Qatari defenses successfully blocked the attack after Iran gave advance notice of the strike, a move that appeared to signal Iran's intent to deescalate the situation after a nearly two-week war with Israel culminated in the U.S.'s direct engagement. President Donald Trump projected a correspondingly conciliatory tone in the wake of the Iranian strike, posting on Truth Social a message of gratitude for Iran's advance warning and declaring that 'they've gotten it all out of their 'system.'' Trump — who has promised to end multiple raging wars in his second term, as he openly angles for the Nobel Peace Prize — has claimed that the U.S. attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities were a smashing success, saying the strikes 'obliterated' the facilities and railing against reports that the attacks only set the program back by several months. Iran has remained tight-lipped about the true impact of the strikes, prompting concern that the attacks have driven its nuclear program further underground. Already, the country has moved to halt cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, further shrouding its program from the globe. 'The damage is serious,' Takht-Ravanchi said of the American attack, without elaborating further. Iran, which claimed that it moved its uranium stockpiles in advance of the U.S. attacks, has also been unwavering in its determination not to relinquish its enrichment program, despite American demands that it do so in order to reach a nuclear deal. 'Our policy has not changed on enrichment,' Takht-Ravanchi reiterated to NBC. 'Iran has every right to do enrichment within its territory. The only thing that we have to observe is not to go for militarization.'


Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
5 Key Ways Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Transforms Corporate Taxation
Tax The House has passed the Senate's version of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill by a narrow margin (216-214), and it will now head to President Trump's desk for his signature. The bill includes significant tax cuts that dwarf the spending cuts to the tune of a $3.1 trillion increase in the deficit over the next 10 years, according to Forbes. This article highlights 5 key ways the One Big Beautiful Bill Act transforms corporate taxation. For a look at how the bill will affect individual taxation, see my companion article on Forbes. (1) Corporate Tax Rates Will Not Increase A key provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 lowered the corporate tax rate by a staggering 40% (from 35% to 21%). The previous rate of 35% has been held constant since 1986. However, relative to other OECD countries, the 35% tax rate was among the highest levied on corporations in the OECD. Many companies and policymakers felt this put US corporations at a competitive disadvantage, especially given the increasingly global economy, according to the Tax Policy Center. Absent a provision allowing the corporate rates to hold steady, they would have reverted to their 35% tax rate. In a statement released by the White House, holding the corporate tax rate at 21% signals a pro-business environment for starting and growing businesses. (2) Full Expensing Of Domestic Research And Experimentation Since 2022, corporations have been required to amortize and expense their research and development (R&D) expenses over time. As highlighted by The Tax Foundation, not being able to immediately expense R&D stifles corporate innovation in the US. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act addresses this issue by allowing R&D performed in the US to be immediately expensed. Meanwhile, R&D performed by US corporations outside the US will continue to be subject to the amortization rules. While separating domestic from international R&D expenses will create other nuances that need to be addressed over time, this provision benefits corporations by allowing the immediate expensing of these costs, yielding significant tax benefits due to the time value of money. This provision enables corporations to recognize expenses earlier, rather than later, thereby benefiting from the time value of money. This provision will also benefit the US by providing financial incentives for corporations to locate their R&D activities within the US. Lastly, an important portion of this provision is that it will be retroactively implemented as of December 31, 2021. This change means that corporations that have been amortizing their R&D over the last three and a half years can now recognize these expenses. For companies with annual gross receipts of less than $31 million, the expensing can occur immediately. All other companies can recognize these expenses over the next two years. (3) Bonus Depreciation Is Back The bonus depreciation benefits, which provide an immediate expense deduction for specified types of property purchased, were introduced by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. These benefits have been slowly phased out in recent years and were scheduled to expire completely in 2027. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act brings back the 100% immediate expensing through 2029. The property that qualifies for bonus depreciation typically includes tangible personal property, such as furniture and fixtures, computer equipment, appliances, and certain types of vehicles. The immediate expensing allows corporations to realize significant tax benefits by accelerating their tax deductions for qualifying expenditures over many years. Being able to deduct these expenses immediately not only puts the cash flows back in the corporation's hands, but it also gives them a time value of money benefit for their tax deductions. (4) Reenactment And Amplified Opportunity Zone Tax Benefits The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 introduced the concept of opportunity zones, designed to utilize tax incentives to stimulate investment in underserved communities. According to the Tax Policy Center, opportunity zones had three key tax benefits: (1) temporary deferral of taxes on previously earned capital gains, (2) basis step-up of previously earned capital gains invested, and (3) exclusion of taxable income on new gains. While the benefits of opportunity zones primarily accrue to high-wealth individuals, many of these opportunity zones have flowed into real estate and operating businesses, representing a potential catalyst for companies that might ultimately become or be acquired by corporations. Importantly, these entities can only be developed and allocated in specific areas, which means that investments are flowing into areas that are most in need of economic stimulus. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act brings back opportunity zones through 2033. The key changes include that 33% of the zones must be in rural areas (an area with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants), and an increased tax incentive of a 30% exclusion of a deferred gain (previously 10%). Thus, this provision will increase the incentives for wealthy taxpayers to invest in rural areas that may be in need of an economic stimulus. (5) Less Extreme Changes To Multinational Taxation Rules Perhaps no bill in history has altered the taxation of US multinationals as significantly as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. In that bill, US multinationals transitioned from a worldwide tax system, where profits generated anywhere in the world were taxed in the US, to a quasi-territorial tax system, where, as long as certain conditions were met, profits were only taxed in the jurisdiction where they were generated. This lowered the complexity for multinational corporation tax laws. However, other provisions have also now become a mainstay in US multinational tax law, such as the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) tax, which introduces an additional layer of US tax when companies have unusually high income relative to their assets overseas. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also introduced the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income (FDII) provision, which provides a lower tax rate for products made in the US and exported overseas. Lastly, the act introduced the Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT), which adds tax liabilities to large corporations that make significant payments to foreign subsidiaries, such as royalties and interest. Each of these provisions were set to become less beneficial to US corporations starting in 2026. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the quasi-territorial tax system will remain in place. The additional layer of GILTI tax will increase from 10.5% to 10.7%. While this increase is higher than 13.1%, it is better than what it would have been absent this bill. Similarly, the lower FDII tax rate was 13.125%, and it would have increased to 16.4%. Instead, it will be 13.3% starting in 2026. Lastly, the BEAT tax rate will increase from 10% to 10.1% under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, rather than 12.5% under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. While some of these changes and modifications may appear small, it is essential to consider the magnitude of the global economy and recognize that even tenths of a percent can have multi-million-dollar ripple effects. Above all else, these changes help ensure our corporations remain competitive in the global economy. These key changes are not all that is packed into the nearly 1,000-page One Big Beautiful Bill Act. However, they do represent some of the most impactful to US Corporations should President Trump sign it into office on the 4th of July.