President Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship is dividing House Republicans, highlighting internal differences on the thorny topic of immigration just as the GOP is making gains with Hispanic voters.

Many conservatives, wary that birthright citizenship has been abused by those living in the country illegally, are backing Trump’s executive order, which has become a rallying cry of the Republicans’ MAGA base. 

Some moderates, leery of eroding a constitutional right that’s existed for more than 150 years, are pushing back, arguing that Trump lacks the authority to eliminate that right unilaterally. 

And a third group is hanging on the fence, acknowledging the noble history of birthright citizenship while questioning if Congress needs to adapt the law to modern times.

The fight is happening just months after an election cycle when Trump and Republicans made significant inroads with Hispanic voters and are hoping to build on that momentum in the coming years. Indeed, while Democrats once enjoyed a huge advantage with Hispanics, Trump won 43 percent of those voters last November, according to Associated Press polls — a jump of 8 percentage points over his unsuccessful run in 2020.

Those Republicans supporting Trump’s effort said the president is merely giving voters what he promised them on the campaign trail — and that includes the Hispanic voters who want tougher immigration rules. 

“He got a mandate from the American people to stop the bleeding at the southern border,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said. 

“I give a lot of credit — whether people like specifics or not, the thing about President Trump [is] he’s been very clear about what he’s been wanting to do. And this is one of those issues,” he added, referring specifically to the end of birthright citizenship. “There’s a reason why he got very strong support from Hispanics around the country, and it’s because he does what he says he’s going to do.”

Other Republicans disagree. Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.), who represents the southernmost tip of Florida, said the 14th Amendment — adopted in 1868 to provide citizenship rights to freed slaves and their descendants — is “pretty clear cut” and no president, including Trump, has the power to roll it back. 

“I believe if you’re born in the United States, you’re a citizen of the United States,” Gimenez said. “So I think the way to actually solve the problem that you’re trying to solve is to control the border.”

Gimenez pointed to the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark that clarified which groups of people were excluded from birthright citizenship privileges — a list that includes the children of diplomats but not those living in the country illegally.

“That pretty much established it,” he said. 

Gimenez said he’s confident the courts, which have already blocked Trump’s order in the near term, will ultimately rule that it’s unconstitutional. Still, he also said some of his constituents are worried in the meantime. 

“I’m hearing people being concerned about it,” he said. 

Caught in the middle of those two camps is a group of House Republicans that remains undecided on Trump’s Day 1 decree. Those lawmakers say they’re weighing constitutionality concerns against criticisms that the 14th Amendment, as currently applied, encourages “birth tourism.”

Asked on “Meet the Press NOW” this week if he would support legislation to do away with birthright citizenship, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) — who represents a battleground district former Vice President Kamala Harris narrowly won in 2024 — demurred.

“Obviously, yes, the 14th Amendment does address the issue of birthright citizenship, though I do think there is [a] question about how it has been abused, frankly, with respect to people who are coming here illegally for the purpose of obviously having children to get them citizenship,” Lawler said. 

“So that is something that obviously the courts are going to weigh in on, probably rather quickly, given some of the legal challenges that have been filed against President Trump’s executive order,” Lawler said, predicting Trump’s executive order would reach the Supreme Court “in relatively short order.”

Signed on Monday, just hours after Trump was sworn in to his second term, the executive order seeks to deny automatic citizenship rights to the children of certain noncitizens, including those in the country illegally. The order was slated to take effect on Feb. 19.

A federal judge on Thursday stepped in to block it temporarily. Judge John Coughenour, a Seattle-based judge who was appointed by President Reagan, didn’t mince words in his ruling, calling Trump’s order “blatantly unconstitutional.” 

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” he said. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one.”

If the courts do knock down Trump’s executive order, as many legal experts are predicting, the president could pressure GOP leaders in Congress to stage a vote on a proposal designed, essentially, to adopt Trump’s order legislatively.

Some GOP lawmakers are already laying the groundwork for that situation.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) introduced a bill this week that claims to “restore the 14th Amendment to its original purpose” by granting automatic citizenship only to individuals with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. or an immigrant who is actively serving in the Armed Services.

“[Trump’s] historic executive order to end birthright citizenship marks a critical step forward, and now with the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025, we can solidify these reforms into lasting law and codify them,” Babin said at a press conference.

House GOP leadership has not given any indication that it plans to bring Babin’s bill to the floor, but the very prospect is not being lost on lawmakers.

“It would be an ugly vote for us, I know that, if we had to take a vote on it,” one moderate House Republican told The Hill, requesting anonymity to discuss the sensitive topic.

The GOP lawmaker — who expressed an openness to Trump’s executive order, arguing that birthright citizenship provides an “incentive” for pregnant individuals to enter the U.S. illegally — noted the sensitive nature of the debate.

“There are people that benefit from this, and it would change that path for them, and some people probably have made decisions to spend a lot of their own money. Some of these coyotes will [have] spent $10,000 to $15,000 to get them across the border. They risk a lot to get here. And this is part of one of the reasons why they do that, it gives their kids an opportunity to a better life,” the member said. 

“But they’re doing it the wrong way, and we literally encourage that with our current law.”

Other Republicans, even those sympathetic to Trump’s efforts, said it would take more than a simple bill to adopt the changes the White House is proposing. Rather, it would require a constitutional amendment — an enormously high bar that would certainly fall short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass through Congress. 

“I think the 14th Amendment was written to mean different than what it’s being used for today,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said. “But the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that if you’re born here you’re a citizen.”

“And I think it’ll be hard to overturn that unless you use an amendment process.”

Emily Brooks contributed reporting.