WASHINGTON, DC — The US State Department has proposed draft guidance requiring parents applying for passports for their children to provide proof of their own citizenship or immigration status. The agency cited President Donald Trump's August 6 executive order on birthright citizenship as the basis for the new requirement.

If implemented, the proposal would require all parents or legal guardians to provide proof of their citizenship, such as a valid US passport or birth certificate, or evidence of their immigration status, such as an I-94 form or a legal permanent residency card, when submitting a passport application for their children. The draft guidance cites Executive Order 14418.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott defended the administrative shift in an official statement. Pigott said "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."

The proposed rules represent a departure from current procedures. Currently, parents whose children were born in the US only need to prove their parentage and present photo identification during the passport application process. Under existing protocols, parents are asked to check a box on the application form indicating if they are US citizens but are not required to file supporting documentation. The August 6 executive order would withhold citizenship from children with a parent who works for a foreign government in the U.S. is engaged in fraud or a commercial transaction to obtain citizenship, or is classified as an "alien enemy." The draft guidance is intended to enforce President Donald Trump's August 6 executive order targeting "birth tourism" and broadening historical exceptions to birthright citizenship.

This directive follows a prior judicial setback for the administration. The US Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that President Trump's previous executive order on birthright citizenship was unlawful because it violated the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment. Trump's initial executive order would have granted automatic US citizenship at birth only to children with at least one parent who was a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

Lawyers pursuing class-action lawsuits on behalf of babies who would be deprived of citizenship under Trump’s initial order have asked two different federal judges to prevent his latest order from taking effect. One of the lawsuits is before US District Judge Deborah Boardman.

Why It Matters

The proposed guidance shifts the burden of proof onto parents seeking passports for their children, requiring documentation that is not currently mandatory. This change aligns federal passport adjudication with the administration's broader efforts to restrict birthright citizenship through executive action, despite previous rulings by the Supreme Court.

Legal challenges are proceeding in federal court, with judges examining the validity of the executive order before the guidance is fully implemented. The outcome of these cases will determine whether the State Department can enforce the new documentation requirements or if the courts will block the directive as they did with the prior order.

Timeline

On August 6, 2026, the draft guidance was issued to enforce President Donald Trump's August 6 executive order targeting "birth tourism" and broadening historical exceptions to birthright citizenship. On the same date, it was established that the August 6 executive order would withhold citizenship from children with a parent who works for a foreign government in the U.S. is engaged in fraud or a commercial transaction to obtain citizenship, or is classified as an "alien enemy."

On August 28, 2026, at a hearing on Friday in Greenbelt, Maryland, Judge Deborah Boardman voiced skepticism about the executive order and allowed the plaintiffs to revise their lawsuit so she could consider whether to block it. Also on August 28, 2026, Justice Department attorneys argued that a restraining order would be inappropriate and that the legal challenge was premature because federal agencies had yet to issue public guidance on how the president's directive would be implemented.

What's New

A study titled "Reduced health care utilization among young children of immigrants after Donald Trump's election and proposed public charge rule" was published in 2023 in Health Affairs Scholar.