Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, is promoting a bill that would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the country when their parents entered unlawfully or came primarily to give birth. Gill discussed the proposal in an interview published Sunday by CBS News Texas, describing it as a legislative response to the Supreme Court’s June ruling that the Constitution protects birthright citizenship for children of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States.

The measure, H.R. 9854, is titled the Citizenship Act of 2026. Gill introduced it on July 22 with Republican co-sponsors Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Buddy Carter of Georgia, Randy Weber of Texas, Mary Miller of Illinois and Wesley Hunt of Texas. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and has not been enacted or approved by either chamber.

The bill’s central mechanism is to classify several groups of noncitizens as “invaders” for purposes of federal citizenship law. Those categories include people who were not lawfully admitted, people who are otherwise unlawfully present, and people whom a consular or immigration official determines sought admission or a change in status for the purpose of giving birth in the United States. It would then amend Section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the statute that recognizes citizenship for people born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

Under the proposal, a child born after enactment would not receive citizenship at birth when the mother was unlawfully present and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. The same exclusion would apply when the mother was found to have sought entry or an immigration-status adjustment for the purpose of giving birth and the father lacked citizenship or permanent-resident status.

The bill also contains a separate provision covering certain commercial surrogacy arrangements involving nationals of countries designated under an existing defense-law definition. It would treat such a person as an “invader” when the arrangement was intended to have a child born in the United States. Unlike some political descriptions of the measure, the text does not purport to cancel citizenship already recognized for people born before the legislation became law. Its effective-date clause applies to children born after enactment.

Gill argues that Congress can make the change without amending the Constitution by invoking its power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and the federal government’s duty to protect states against invasion. The bill says Congress would codify President Donald Trump’s declaration that mass unlawful migration constitutes an invasion and would apply an exception historically associated with children born in territory under hostile occupation.

That theory would face an immediate and unusually steep constitutional test. On June 30, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court rejected the administration’s attempt to create parent-status exceptions through Executive Order 14160. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the principal opinion, joined by four other justices, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment on statutory grounds, producing a 6-3 result.

The majority’s analysis described the traditional exceptions to citizenship by birth as narrow, including children of foreign diplomats and births in territory outside the sovereign’s control. Gill’s bill relies on language from the 1898 decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark referring to children born during hostile occupation, but it would extend the “invader” label to unauthorized migrants and designated birth tourists who remain subject to ordinary U.S. civil and criminal law. Courts would have to decide whether Congress may transform those circumstances into a constitutional exception after the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

The proposal tries to constrain that review. Section 5 states that no court may review a determination by the president or Congress that an invasion exists. That clause is also likely to generate litigation because the bill would use the invasion declaration to determine who receives citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts generally assess constitutional claims even when legislation seeks to limit jurisdiction, particularly when an individual’s legal status and access to government documents are at stake.

The political argument also combines two distinct populations. “Birth tourism” commonly refers to travel undertaken primarily so a child will be born in the United States and acquire citizenship. Existing visa policy already allows officers to deny a visitor visa when they conclude that obtaining citizenship for a child is the applicant’s principal purpose. Unauthorized immigrants, by contrast, may have lived in the United States for years and may not have entered while pregnant or with childbirth as an objective.

CBS News Texas cited Pew Research Center estimates that about 320,000 babies born in the United States in 2023 had mothers who were unauthorized immigrants or held temporary legal status, roughly 9% of U.S. births that year. That figure is broader than birth tourism and should not be read as an estimate of women who entered specifically to give birth. CBS also cited federal birth data showing about 9,000 births to women who lived abroad, a group that likewise includes people traveling for reasons unrelated to obtaining citizenship.

Gill told CBS News Texas that he expects broad Republican support but acknowledged that Democratic backing may be difficult. Texas state Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., a Fort Worth Democrat and chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, opposed the proposal and characterized it as an attempt to continue a fight the administration lost at the Supreme Court.

A Senate version was introduced earlier in July by Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind. Banks’ office said that measure also seeks to codify Trump’s invasion declaration and deny birthright citizenship to children of unauthorized immigrants and birth tourists. The existence of companion legislation gives supporters a vehicle in both chambers, but neither proposal is close to becoming law. Committee hearings, markups and floor votes would be required, followed by agreement between the House and Senate and the president’s signature.

Even if Congress passed the measure, implementation would be complex. Hospitals and state vital-records offices generally record births, while federal agencies issue passports, Social Security numbers and certificates of citizenship. Enforcing parent-status exceptions could require federal rules governing proof of a mother’s status, a father’s citizenship or permanent residency, and the intent behind a visa application or entry. Disputes could arise immediately for newborns whose parents lack records, contest an immigration finding or disagree over paternity.

For now, the legal rule remains unchanged: children born in the United States are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, subject to the narrow exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court. Gill’s proposal is significant not because it has changed that rule, but because it lays out the next congressional strategy for challenging it—recasting unlawful migration and birth tourism as an “invasion” and testing whether lawmakers can create by statute an exception the court declined to recognize in the executive order.