Childbirth in the U.S. After August 6: A Lifetime Entry Ban Instead of a “Turnkey Passport” — Kirill Iordanov’s Blog

What Trump Actually Signed, Why It All Boils Down to the 1868
Provision, and Where the Line Is Drawn Between “Birth Tourism”
and the Ordinary Childbirth of a Ukrainian Woman Legally Residing in the U.S.

I was recently invited to appear on “Kyiv24” to comment on Donald Trump’s latest attack on so-called birth tourism. At first glance, the issue seems simple: a foreign woman comes to the U.S., gives birth to a child—and the child receives a U.S. passport. Trump wants to put an end to this practice.

There are only a few minutes on the air for such a response, and that’s not enough. Because the story turned out to be much bigger than the headlines, and for Ukrainians, it’s not just an abstract concept: since 2022, many Ukrainian families have settled in the United States, where Ukrainian children are being born, and the “birth tourism” service was well known in Ukraine long before the war.

On August 6, 2026, the U.S. president signed two executive orders at once. Everyone wrote about the first one—“Ending Birth Tourism”—which deals with visas, consuls, and the border. The second, with the long title “Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” was mentioned only in passing. Legally, however, it is this one that is the real news, because it concerns not those who are still planning to fly there, but children who have already been born on American soil.

The visa executive order: broader and stricter than the news suggests

First and foremost, it’s important to clear up a misunderstanding that easily arises from the headlines: pregnant women have not been barred from entering the U.S. Pregnancy in and of itself is not a violation. A Ukrainian woman can travel to the U.S. to join her husband, visit relatives, go on a business trip, study, or seek medical treatment. The issue arises when a trip is declared for one purpose but used for another—arriving shortly before giving birth, giving birth in an American hospital, and obtaining citizenship for the child.

The idea to combat this did not originate on August 6. Back in January 2020, the State Department changed the rules for B-1/B-2 visas: a trip whose primary purpose is to give birth to a child for the sake of U.S. citizenship is no longer considered a legitimate tourist purpose.

The new order goes further, and there are three important details here that are largely missing from the news.

First, it is not limited to tourist visas. Birth tourism is defined as the entry of any foreign national on any nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on U.S. soil, as well as any actions taken to facilitate such entry. The preamble explicitly mentions visas for study, exchange, temporary employment, and tourism. Thus, the scope includes not only B-2 visas but also student, exchange, and work visas.

Second, the consequences are not limited to visa denial. The executive order allows for the revocation of a visa that has already been issued, denial of entry, removal of the individual, and—in a separate provision—a permanent ban on their entry into the United States. Measures are also provided for against companies and individuals who organize such trips, both within the United States and abroad.

Third, there is a safeguard that is more important to the Ukrainian audience than anything mentioned previously. The Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may exempt a specific individual from the decree’s provisions on humanitarian grounds or if their entry serves U.S. national interests.

Now for the mechanics, because they explain how this can be challenged at all. The executive order does not impose a new ban on its own. It delegates presidential authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security. It also explicitly states that it does not create any rights that can be invoked in court. The practical conclusion is simple: it is not the executive order itself that will have to be challenged, but rather the specific decision of a particular consular officer or border agent.

Another nuance is that the definition is tied specifically to entry on a nonimmigrant visa. The humanitarian entry authorization, under which a significant number of Ukrainians entered the U.S. after 2022, is not a visa. Formally, such entry does not fall under this definition.

Why go to the U.S. to give birth at all?

For one reason: a child born in the U.S. generally becomes a U.S. citizen. And this isn’t just about a nice blue passport.

For the child, it means the right to live in the United States for life and return there at any time without a visa or Green Card, to work without a separate permit, to vote upon reaching the age of majority, to receive consular protection abroad, and to have access to jobs and programs that require citizenship. And after turning 21, that child can file an immigration petition on behalf of their parents.

This last point has given rise to a persistent myth that simply being born in America is enough for the entire family to automatically gain the right to stay there. This is not true—in two ways. Parents who are tourists do not receive a Green Card, citizenship, or the right to remain in the country indefinitely. But even after twenty-one years, the petition alone does not resolve anything: if the parents entered the country legally, a change of status within the country is possible; if not, or if they have accumulated unlawful presence, entry bans of three and ten years apply. In practice, this means applying through a consulate outside the U.S., with the risk of being separated from that same child for many years.

There’s also a downside that agencies don’t mention in their brochures. A U.S. citizen remains a U.S. taxpayer for life and is required to file an annual tax return regardless of which country they live in. Males aged 18 and older are required to register with the Selective Service. Such individuals must use a U.S. passport to enter and exit the United States. In other words, being an “American child” is indeed a significant legal asset for the child. But it is a set of rights and obligations, not a magic button for legalizing the family’s status.

What Do Slavery, the Civil War, and 1868 Have to Do with It?

The U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787, and it did not abolish slavery. Moreover, in 1857, the Supreme Court, in the case of “Dred Scott v. Sandford,” handed down one of the darkest rulings in its history, effectively denying African Americans the opportunity to be full-fledged citizens. Then came the Civil War of 1861–1865 and the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

And immediately a question arose—one that was simple to the point of banality yet fundamental at the same time: A slave is no longer a slave—but who is he now in the eyes of the state? And who is his child?

The answer was provided by the 14th Amendment of 1868: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”

The logical objection here is obvious, and Trump’s supporters are actively exploiting it: the amendment’s authors did not discuss airplanes, tourist visas, or commercial tours for pregnant women. But the law does not function solely based on the question of “what exactly the authors of the provision had in mind.” What matters is the text itself and how the courts have interpreted it for over a century.

In 1898, the Supreme Court heard the case “United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens. The court ruled that birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship if the person is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The exceptions were kept very narrow—a classic example here is the child of a foreign diplomat who enjoys diplomatic immunity.

Trump has already tried—and failed

On January 20, 2025, on the first day of his new presidential term, Trump signed an executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents.

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this executive order. In the case of Trump v. Barbara, a majority led by Chief Justice Roberts confirmed that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment extends citizenship to children born to parents who are in the United States and to whom no extraterritorial fiction applies. Several conservative justices noted at the time that this interpretation leaves room for birth tourism.

Trump commented briefly on the loss: the decision was unfortunate, so the administration was “making adjustments.” These adjustments were signed into law five weeks later.

The Second Executive Order: The Line That Was Finally Crossed

In the legal debate surrounding this issue, there was a line that had previously been considered uncrossable. To say, “We won’t let you into the U.S. because you applied for a visa for one purpose but are traveling for another”—that is immigration policy, and the president’s authority in this area is indeed very broad. To say, “Your child was born on our territory, but we do not recognize them as a citizen because of the reason their parents came here”—that is a matter of the Constitution.

The second executive order, dated August 6, addresses precisely the latter issue. It instructs government agencies not to issue documents confirming U.S. citizenship and not to accept state-issued documents when neither parent is a citizen and the parents have engaged in a commercial transaction to acquire or gain access to citizenship by birth. Two specific situations are explicitly mentioned: when parents pay for the mother to travel to the U.S. to give birth, and when there is a commercial agreement with a surrogate mother on U.S. soil.

Consequently, a purchased “turnkey childbirth” package can now serve as grounds for denying citizenship to a child who has already been born in the U.S.

The decree is not limited to this. It also significantly expands the very “diplomatic exception” that has been interpreted narrowly for a century and a half. The group of individuals whose children do not acquire citizenship includes not only ambassadors but also employees of foreign embassies and consulates who are citizens of the respective state, any individuals employed by a foreign government in an official capacity, and employees of international organizations with the corresponding immunity. It is worth pausing here: the classic exception under Wong Kim Ark required specifically diplomatic immunity, whereas the phrasing “employed by a foreign government in an official capacity” is noticeably broader. This directly applies to Ukrainian civil servants in the United States as well.

Separately covered are children whose parents are “enemy aliens”—specifically, members of designated foreign terrorist organizations—and children born on U.S. territory where citizenship is not granted by federal law.

The legal fate of this provision seems predictable. The executive order was signed five weeks after a Supreme Court decision that explicitly interpreted that very provision and was presented as a list of “historically recognized exceptions” to it. Lawsuits have already been announced. But until the courts have their say, the documents will not be issued.

What This Means for Ukrainian Women in the U.S.

The main thing is not to confuse different situations. If a Ukrainian woman is legally residing in the U.S.—whether she is working, studying, participating in a humanitarian program, or has another legitimate legal basis for her stay—and gives birth while there, this situation does not, by itself, constitute birth tourism. Her purpose for entering the country was different, and neither of the two executive orders applies to her.

Here’s a different scenario: a woman lives in Ukraine, is in the late stages of pregnancy, arranges a two-month trip to the U.S., has a pre-signed contract with a clinic, and the real purpose of the trip is specifically to give birth. This is precisely what the current policy is designed to address. A consul or border official will not focus on the words “I’m a tourist,” but rather on the stage of pregnancy, the duration of the trip, reservations, the clinic, the doctor, the method of payment for childbirth, return tickets, and previous trips.

And a separate note on the temptation that almost always arises here: Hiding the true purpose of the trip is a bad strategy. In that case, the problem will no longer be the childbirth itself, but the deliberate misleading of U.S. immigration authorities—and this carries consequences far beyond a single trip. Given the possibility of a lifetime entry ban, the cost of such deception has risen significantly.

It’s also worth keeping in mind the scale of the phenomenon. There are no official statistics on birth tourism. Government data records fewer than 10,000 births to mothers with foreign addresses in 2024, while the Migration Policy Institute estimates the possible number of such cases at approximately 26,000, out of about 3.5 million births in the U.S. each year. Incidentally, during the signing ceremony, a congressional report was mentioned regarding “hot spots” such as Russian elites who travel to Miami through specialized companies.

The Ukrainian Perspective

For some reason, this aspect is hardly ever discussed, even though it concerns parents just as much as the American side of the issue.

A child born in the U.S. to parents who are citizens of Ukraine acquires Ukrainian citizenship by birth under Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizenship of Ukraine.” In other words, she is both an American and a Ukrainian, and her Ukrainian citizenship is granted automatically, without any applications.

Previously, this created some tension, as Ukraine simply ignored the fact that its own citizens held foreign passports. Law No. 4502-IX, which came into effect on January 16, 2026, introduced the concept of multiple citizenship, and the United States is included in the list of countries approved by the Cabinet of Ministers (initially among the first five, and as of May 2026, the list has been expanded to thirty-three). Multiple citizenship is expressly permitted, in particular, for children who acquire dual citizenship by birth.

Therefore, from the Ukrainian side, there are currently no issues for such a child. All the complications lie on the American side.

So, is “giving birth in America” a thing of the past?

No. But the rules have changed so much that the old logic of “go there, give birth, and return with a passport” can be considered obsolete.

If a person lives in the U.S. legally and gives birth there, that’s a different story, and it’s still valid. If a person travels to the U.S. specifically as a birth tourist, the risks are now measured not by a visa denial, but by a possible lifetime entry ban and the denial of documents for the child who has already been born.

And the main question remains—the very reason this story is worth reading at all. The U.S. may refuse to admit an expectant mother—that is its unquestionable right. But if a child has already been born on American soil, can the government, based on the parents’ behavior, declare that this child is not an American?

Trump gave his answer on August 6. Standing against it are the text of the 14th Amendment, over a century of judicial precedent, and a Supreme Court ruling handed down five weeks earlier. The courts will provide the final answer—and it will no longer concern tourist visas, but rather whether immigration policy can alter the meaning of a constitutional provision written after the abolition of slavery.