Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The Born in the USA Act of 2025 prohibits use of Federal funds to carry out Executive Order 14160 (Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship) or any successor Executive order, regulation, or policy. The bill cites the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court decision United States v.
Progressives emphasize constitutional protection and immigrant stability
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill states a clear administrative objective (a funding prohibition targeted at a specific Executive Order) and cites relevant constitutional and statutory background.
The Born in the USA Act of 2025 prohibits use of Federal funds to carry out Executive Order 14160 (Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship) or any successor Executive order, regulation, or policy.
The bill cites the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court decision United States v.
Wong Kim Ark, and asserts birthright citizenship cannot be rescinded by Executive order.
Simple funding ban has clear statutory form but addresses a polarized, high-profile immigration issue and faces substantial political and possible veto risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill states a clear administrative objective (a funding prohibition targeted at a specific Executive Order) and cites relevant constitutional and statutory background. It implements that objective with a single, straightforward prohibition but provides minimal implementation detail.
Progressives emphasize constitutional protection and immigrant stability
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize constitutional protection and immigrant stability
Likely strongly supportive.
Views the bill as a narrowly targeted, constitutionally grounded check on an administration action that attempts to curtail birthright citizenship.
Sees it as protecting immigrant families and upholding precedent.
Generally supportive but cautious.
Sees the bill as a narrow, procedural use of appropriations to enforce constitutional norms while avoiding altering citizenship law directly.
Concerned about clear definitions and potential administrative confusion or costs.
Likely opposed.
Sees the bill as a partisan constraint on presidential authority and a barrier to executive efforts to change immigration outcomes.
Prefers legislative clarification of citizenship rather than an appropriations-based prohibition.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Simple funding ban has clear statutory form but addresses a polarized, high-profile immigration issue and faces substantial political and possible veto risk.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize constitutional protection and immigrant stability
Simple funding ban has clear statutory form but addresses a polarized, high-profile immigration issue and faces substantial political and p…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill states a clear administrative objective (a funding prohibition targeted at a specific Executive Order) and cites relevant constitutional and statutory background. It…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.