A Wyoming congresswoman wants to shut down a multimillion-dollar industry built around foreign nationals traveling to the United States to give birth on American soil, securing automatic citizenship for their children under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rep. Harriet Hageman, the Republican who unseated Liz Cheney in 2022, introduced the Birth Tourism Prevention Act, a bill that would make it a federal crime to operate or advertise businesses that help foreign nationals plan trips to the U.S. for the specific purpose of obtaining citizenship for their newborns. The legislation would also deny visas to pregnant foreign nationals if officials determine the primary purpose of travel is to give birth in the country.
Birth tourism has grown into a thriving commercial enterprise. As Fox News first reported, companies openly market packages to expectant mothers abroad, offering travel arrangements, housing near American hospitals, and step-by-step guidance on securing U.S. birth certificates and Social Security numbers for newborns. The operations span multiple countries, with significant demand from China, Russia, Nigeria, and several Middle Eastern nations.
The Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that approximately 33,000 children are born annually to foreign nationals visiting the U.S. on tourist visas, a figure that does not include births to those who overstayed visas or entered illegally. Those children receive automatic U.S. citizenship under the prevailing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Hageman framed the practice as a direct exploitation of American law.
"Birth tourism is a booming, multimillion-dollar industry that profits from exploiting America's generous citizenship laws. Foreign nationals are being coached and assisted in gaming the system, and it needs to stop."
The Birth Tourism Prevention Act targets the commercial infrastructure rather than the constitutional question of birthright citizenship itself. The bill creates new federal criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly operates, advertises, or facilitates a birth tourism business. Violations would carry fines and potential prison time, though the specific sentencing ranges were not detailed in the materials Hageman's office released.
On the visa side, the legislation directs consular officers to deny B-1 and B-2 visitor visas when they have reason to believe the applicant's primary purpose is to give birth in the United States. It would also require the State Department to update its Foreign Affairs Manual to include birth tourism as a specific ground for visa denial.
The bill does not attempt to redefine or limit the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship guarantee. That separates it from broader proposals, including executive actions President Trump has pursued, that challenge birthright citizenship head-on. Hageman's approach sidesteps the constitutional debate by going after the commercial facilitation layer.
Federal authorities have targeted birth tourism rings before, though prosecutions remain rare relative to the scale of the industry. In 2019, federal prosecutors in Southern California secured guilty pleas from operators of several "maternity hotels" that catered primarily to Chinese nationals. Those cases involved charges of visa fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy. Operators had coached clients to wear loose clothing at consular interviews and to lie about the purpose of their travel.
Despite those prosecutions, no federal statute specifically criminalizes the business model itself. Prosecutors have relied on fraud and conspiracy charges, which require proving that operators helped clients make false statements to immigration officials. Hageman's bill would create a standalone offense tied directly to operating or promoting a birth tourism enterprise.
The Fourteenth Amendment question looms behind any birth tourism legislation. The prevailing legal interpretation, rooted in the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, holds that virtually all children born on U.S. soil are citizens regardless of their parents' immigration status. That ruling involved the U.S.-born son of Chinese immigrants who were legal permanent residents, and courts have broadly applied its reasoning ever since.
Conservative legal scholars have long argued that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language in the Citizenship Clause was originally understood to exclude children of foreign nationals who owe allegiance to another sovereign. That reading would cover birth tourists, who hold no permanent ties to the United States. Liberal scholars counter that the clause excludes only children of foreign diplomats and enemy occupiers.
President Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 seeking to narrow birthright citizenship for children of parents who are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Federal courts blocked the order, and litigation continues. Hageman's bill operates on different ground entirely, targeting the commercial pipeline rather than the constitutional definition.
Supporters of the legislation point to national security risks beyond the immigration question. A U.S. passport opens doors that other travel documents cannot. Citizens born through birth tourism can later sponsor family members for green cards once they turn 21, creating what critics call "chain migration" pathways that begin with a single strategically planned birth.
Hageman's office noted that some birth tourism clients come from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism or nations with adversarial relationships with the United States. The concern is that U.S.-citizen children born to nationals of those countries could eventually access sensitive government positions, security clearances, or military service with fewer screening hurdles than a naturalized citizen would face.
Investigators have not publicly confirmed whether any birth tourism cases have produced specific national security incidents. The concern remains theoretical but has gained traction among Republicans who view the practice as a structural vulnerability.
The bill faces the same headwinds as most immigration legislation in a narrowly divided Congress. Democrats have broadly opposed measures they view as restricting immigration pathways, and civil liberties groups have raised concerns that visa denials based on pregnancy could amount to sex discrimination.
Immigration advocacy organizations argue that denying visas to pregnant women raises due process and equal protection issues. They contend that consular officers lack the medical expertise and legal authority to make pregnancy-based determinations without clear statutory guidance and procedural safeguards.
Hageman dismissed those objections.
"We are not talking about denying anyone emergency medical care or punishing mothers. We are talking about shutting down a commercial fraud scheme that treats American citizenship like a product for sale."
The bill has drawn support from immigration hawks in the House, though no companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate. Republican leadership has not indicated whether the bill will receive a committee hearing or a floor vote.
The legislation has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where Hageman sits. That placement gives her direct influence over whether the bill advances to markup. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has signaled interest in immigration enforcement measures broadly, though his office has not commented on this specific bill.
Authorities have not said whether the Department of Homeland Security or the State Department provided input during drafting. The bill's enforcement mechanisms would require coordination between consular officers abroad and federal prosecutors at home, a structure that typically demands interagency rulemaking before it becomes operational.
If the bill stalls legislatively, its provisions could still shape executive branch policy. The Trump administration has shown willingness to use existing statutory authority aggressively on immigration matters, and a detailed congressional blueprint for targeting birth tourism could inform future executive orders or agency guidance.
American citizenship is either a birthright grounded in constitutional principle or a commodity being sold to the highest bidder overseas. Hageman's bill forces Congress to decide which version it intends to defend.
