SB 646, titled the “Born in the USA Act,” would bar the use of federal funds to implement Executive Order 14160, a January 20, 2025 executive order that sought to limit recognition of citizenship for certain children born in the United States. The bill’s findings rest on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and the view that birthright citizenship is already protected by the Constitution and federal immigration law.
In practical terms, the bill would prohibit appropriations or any other federal funds from being used to carry out Executive Order 14160, including any successor executive order, regulation, or policy. It is framed as a funding restriction rather than a direct amendment to citizenship law, but its effect would be to prevent executive-branch implementation of the order and reinforce existing statutory and constitutional protections for birthright citizenship.
The available record shows the bill was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided. The bill’s tone and findings indicate strong opposition to the executive order and a clear intent to preserve current citizenship rules. Because no debate or vote history is available, broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured from the record, but the sponsors’ position is plainly supportive of birthright citizenship.
The main point of contention is the underlying legality and policy of Executive Order 14160 and, more broadly, whether birthright citizenship should remain unchanged. Supporters of the bill argue that the Constitution and federal law already guarantee citizenship to persons born in the United States and that the executive order is unconstitutional. Opponents of the executive order would likely support the bill, while those favoring tighter citizenship rules would object to the funding prohibition and the bill’s rejection of the order’s premise.
Impact
SB 646 would not amend the Constitution or the Immigration and Nationality Act, but it would restrict federal spending by prohibiting funds from being used to implement Executive Order 14160 or any related successor policy. The bill would therefore affect executive agencies responsible for citizenship, immigration, and federal benefits administration by preventing them from carrying out the order. It reinforces existing birthright citizenship protections under the 14th Amendment and 8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., and it would likely be used to block administrative enforcement actions tied to the executive order.
Sentiment
The bill is presented in strongly supportive terms by its sponsors, who describe the executive order as unconstitutional and emphasize that birthright citizenship is already settled law. The absence of recorded votes or committee discussion means there is no broader legislative sentiment available from the provided materials, but the bill itself reflects a clear pro-birthright-citizenship, anti-executive-order stance. The naming of the bill and the findings suggest an intent to rally support around constitutional protections for children born in the United States.
Contention
The central controversy is whether Executive Order 14160 can lawfully limit recognition of citizenship for certain U.S.-born children, and whether Congress should intervene through appropriations restrictions. Supporters of SB 646 argue that the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark definitively protect birthright citizenship and that the order is unconstitutional. Any opposition would likely come from those who support the executive order’s immigration policy goals or who dispute the scope of birthright citizenship, though no opposing statements or votes are included in the record.
HOUSE RESOLUTION CONDEMNING PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDER TO WITHDRAW CITIZENSHIP FROM CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES TO UNDOCUMENTED PARENTS
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion. Specifically, a health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital. Additionally, a health care practitioner or other employee who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the degree-of-care requirements must immediately report such failure to law enforcement. A health care practitioner who fails to provide the required degree of care, or a health care practitioner or other employee who fails to report such failure, is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both. An individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder. The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive under this bill and allows her to bring a civil action against a health care practitioner or other employee for violations.