The U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of birthright citizenship has drawn criticism from some allies of President Donald Trump, who contend that this right has facilitated “birth tourism.” This term refers to pregnant women traveling from abroad to the U.S. to give birth, thereby securing citizenship for their children.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., stated that birthright citizenship has been “grossly abused” by “birthing tourism.” Similarly, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, described birthright citizenship as a “major magnet for illegal immigration and birth tourism.”
Following the ruling, Trump posted, appearing to reference birth tourism, “I want to congratulate President Xi, and the Great Country of China, on their massive Birthright Citizenship WIN!” A spokesperson for the White House directed inquiries about his statement to a previous Truth Social post from Trump that criticized the ruling.
Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, commented on Fox News, “You have to now think very carefully about who you let into your country, even on a temporary basis” due to birth tourism.
The Justice Department has committed to prosecuting birth tourism schemes and has done so in the past. Investigations into birth tourism have previously examined the extent of the practice and whether wealthy foreign expectant mothers come to the U.S. without paying hospital bills. These investigations have found that birth tourism exists, but constitutes a very small percentage of annual U.S. births.
Estimates suggest between 5,000 and 26,000 babies are born annually as a result of birth tourism.
The precise number of women who come to the U.S. specifically to give birth for citizenship purposes remains unknown, as no U.S. agency tracks this data. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated approximately 9,500 births in 2024 to parents who reported a non-U.S. residence, though this figure is likely an undercount.
The Migration Policy Institute noted that while this number can serve as an indicator for births related to birth tourism, it also includes women who may not have intended to give birth in the United States. In 2020, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated between 20,000 and 26,000 potential births from tourists annually, a figure the Niskanen Center considered an overcount.
A research brief from Penn State researchers in June estimated that babies born to such tourists ranged from 5,000 to just under 10,000 per year, representing 0.3% of annual births. These researchers defined “birth tourists” as mothers reported as foreign-born or with unknown origin whose usual residence is outside the United States. Regardless of the exact number, this represents a small fraction of the approximately 3.6 million births in the U.S. annually.
Research by Nicole Kreisberg, a senior author of the Penn State study, indicated that the narrative of wealthy Asian families or low-income Hispanic families seeking public benefits does not align with demographic evidence. The majority of such births are to Hispanic mothers, particularly from Mexico, whose educational levels do not support the narrative of seeking public benefits. Births to Asian mothers remain consistently low, peaking at 425 in 2018 and never exceeding 0.2% of U.S. Asian births.
Previous administrations have taken measures to address and prosecute birth tourism. Giving birth in the U.S. as a foreigner is not illegal, but it becomes a crime if it involves visa fraud or other federal law violations. U.S. tourist visas are not intended for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship through childbirth. Immigration officials can deny entry to pregnant women if they suspect the intent is to give birth in the U.S.
The Obama administration provided guidance on travel under B-2 visas for medical treatment, requiring proof of ability to cover birth-related costs and intent to depart the U.S. The first Trump administration implemented a regulation allowing consular officers to deny visas for potential birth tourism applicants. The Biden administration has tightened travel regulations for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands due to concerns about increased birth tourism in those U.S. territories. In April 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched an investigation into birth tourism networks.
During oral arguments, the Solicitor General argued that birthright citizenship has fueled a significant industry of birth tourism, with individuals from potentially hostile nations giving birth in the U.S. However, the Supreme Court justices largely did not address this issue in their rulings. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, briefly mentioned it. Other justices acknowledged that citizenship laws should not be altered based on concerns about this specific group.
Reference