Florida officials are reportedly in talks with the Trump administration about shutting down the controversial migrant detention center nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz” after the Department of Homeland Security concluded the massive facility may be too costly to keep running.
According to a Thursday report from The New York Times, the detention center — which opened in July 2025 with strong backing from President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — has already cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars to operate.
The facility became a national flashpoint almost immediately after opening.
Just days before detainees arrived, Trump toured the site alongside then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and DeSantis, praising Florida’s aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration and taking a swipe at former President Joe Biden.
During the visit, Trump joked that Biden “probably wanted to put me in there,” while admiring the heavy-duty detention setup designed to house illegal migrants deep in the Florida Everglades.
But the project quickly ran into legal and political trouble.
A federal judge ordered the facility shut down in August after environmental groups and a local Native American tribe sued over concerns about the impact on nearby land and wildlife. An appeals court later blocked the shutdown order, allowing operations to continue while the legal fight played out.
The center has also faced criticism from immigrant advocacy groups and detainees, who alleged poor conditions inside the facility, including claims of maggot-infested food, withheld medication, and overcrowded living quarters.
Despite the backlash, supporters argued the facility symbolized the tougher immigration enforcement policies championed by Trump and embraced by Republican leaders frustrated with years of border chaos under Biden-era policies.
Now, with costs reportedly spiraling, Florida and federal officials appear to be reconsidering whether “Alligator Alcatraz” is sustainable long term.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem receives a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center CECOT with the Minister of Justice and Public Security Gustavo Villatoro in Tecoluca, El Salvador, March 26, 2025. (DHS photo by Tia Dufour)
Prominent Democrats are escalating calls to remove Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, accusing her of rushing to defend federal officers involved in two separate fatal shootings — a push that Republicans are likely to view as more partisan pressure on law enforcement than a serious, evidence-based accountability process.
According to Axios, a House Democratic caucus phone call on Sunday “lit up” with demands to impeach Noem after the death of Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti, who was shot and killed by federal agents on Saturday.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) reportedly warned colleagues that if Noem refuses to step down, “we will have no other option but to begin impeachment,” according to anonymous sources cited by Axios.
House Homeland Security Committee ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-MS) — “who was once reticent about impeachment” — also called for Noem to be impeached during the same call, Axios reported.
Outside Washington, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) also demanded Noem’s removal, writing, “@Sec_Noem has forfeited her right to lead. I’m calling on her to resign.”
Hochul went further, adding, “Gregory Bovino must also be fired,” referring to a senior Border Patrol official who publicly defended the shooting at a press conference Sunday.
Democrats point to pattern; Republicans see familiar impeachment politics
Democrats argue Noem is showing a troubling pattern of defending federal officers before facts are fully established, pointing to a similar incident earlier this year.
The article notes that Renee Good was “shot four times and killed” on Jan. 7 by “officer Jonathan Ross,” and that Noem also immediately said the officer acted in self-defense.
Noem’s supporters — and many Republicans — are likely to counter that federal officers operating in volatile environments, including protests and border-related enforcement actions, deserve the presumption that they were responding to a real threat until evidence proves otherwise, especially amid increasingly aggressive anti-police rhetoric.
Republicans have also criticized Democrats for using impeachment as a political weapon in recent years, arguing that removing Cabinet officials should be reserved for clear misconduct, not disputed narratives still under investigation.
Border Patrol official calls Pretti “assaultive,” claims he interfered with federal action
At Sunday’s press conference, Bovino described Pretti as an “assaultive subject” who was “assaulting” officers and interfering with a federal action — language that underscores how federal officials are framing the encounter as a fast-moving confrontation rather than an unprovoked shooting.
Bovino’s comments, however, are now being disputed by Democrats and major media outlets that reviewed video from the scene.
Video review raises questions about the Trump administration’s initial account
Major news organizations, including The Wall Street Journal, reviewed bystander footage and reported that “Bystander footage appears to tell a different story” than the Trump administration’s claims.
The Journal reported: “A frame-by-frame review by The Wall Street Journal shows a federal officer pulling a handgun away from Pretti. Less than a second later, an agent fires several rounds. Pretti died at the scene.”
Both The Journal and The New York Times concluded that “At least 10 shots appear to have been fired within five seconds.”
Political fallout likely to intensify as facts emerge
The dispute is now shifting into familiar political territory: Democrats are pressing for impeachment and firings, while Republicans are likely to insist that the federal government should not allow high-pressure incidents involving officers to be immediately adjudicated by political opponents — especially before investigators have fully reviewed evidence, witness statements, and body camera footage, if available.
Yes, Kristi Noem should be impeached. What we're seeing in the news scares me to death.
DHS got $191 billion in the Big Ugly Bill, and she has not come before @HouseJudiciary to explain to the American people and Congress how she's using that money. pic.twitter.com/ttxkjw0IsN
— Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (@RepKamlagerDove) January 25, 2026
Under Secretary Noem, ICE is no longer about immigration enforcement. It's about terrorizing communities.
The incompetence surrounding President Trump is unbelievable.
Secretary Noem and fellow minions follow President Trump blindly, no matter the harm.
I’m impeaching Secretary Noem for breaking due process by directing her agents to conduct warrantless arrests and use excessive… pic.twitter.com/uuL6nBurz3
Illegal Immigration in the United State via Wikimedia Commons
History in the making…
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have reportedly come to an agreement to allow ICE to access taxpayer information to locate illegal immigrants subject to deportation.
According to Fox News, the Trump administration filed a memorandum of understanding late Monday with a court to create guardrails and a process for ICE requests to the IRS to further investigations of criminal illegal immigrants who have failed or refuse to leave the United States 90 days after a judge has issued a final order of removal.
“The Internal Revenue Service and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement have entered into a memorandum of understanding to establish a clear and secure process to support law enforcement’s efforts to combat illegal immigration,” a Treasury Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement.
“The bases for this MOU are founded in longstanding authorities granted by Congress, which serve to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans while streamlining the ability to pursue criminals,” the statement said. “After four years of Joe Biden flooding the nation with illegal aliens, President Trump’s highest priority is to ensure the safety of the American people.”
A senior Treasury Department official said the illegal immigrants have been given due process but have overstayed 90 days post a judge’s removal order.
The MOU outlines a process to ensure that sensitive taxpayer data information is protected while allowing law enforcement to pursue criminal violations, the official said.
A draft agreement reported last month by the Washington Post said it would limit ICE to confirm the addresses of illegal immigrants who have final removal orders.
The deal would allow ICE to submit the names and addresses of illegal immigrants to the IRS, who could then cross-check those immigrants’ tax records and provide the immigration agency with current address information.
The significant step forward comes amid the Trump Administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had earlier mandated the administration to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return by midnight, emphasizing that his deportation was an “administrative error.” The Department of Justice (DOJ) acknowledged the mistake but argued that the court’s injunction was “patently unlawful,” asserting that the government lacks the authority to retrieve him from El Salvador.
Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia (R), a longtime supporter of former President Trump and co-founder of Latinas for Trump, is publicly criticizing the tone and tactics surrounding the administration’s latest immigration crackdown—warning that internal divisions and inflammatory rhetoric could cost Republicans in the midterms.
“I do think that he will lose the midterms because of Stephen Miller,” Garcia told The New York Times in an interview published Tuesday, referring to Trump’s White House deputy chief of staff and one of the architects of the administration’s hard-line immigration strategy.
Garcia, who has consistently supported strong border enforcement and backed Trump’s efforts to regain control of the southern border, stressed that her concern is not with securing the border itself, but with how the policy is being communicated and executed. She placed particular blame on Miller for what she described as unnecessarily aggressive rhetoric that risks alienating persuadable voters—including Hispanic Republicans who favor border security but reject what they see as dehumanizing language.
The comments follow a volatile weekend in Minneapolis, where federal agents shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Pretti during a protest tied to the administration’s immigration actions. The incident came just weeks after another fatal shooting involving federal authorities in the same city, when ICE officers shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good earlier this month.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Pretti “attacked” federal law enforcement officers, while Miller went further, describing Pretti as “a would-be assassin” who “tried to murder federal law enforcement.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later sought to distance President Trump from Miller’s remarks, telling reporters Monday that she had not heard the president “characterize Mr. Pretti in that way” and emphasizing that the incident remains under investigation.
Garcia pushed back sharply on Miller’s framing in a post Monday on X.
“Distorting, politicizing, slandering – justifying what happened to Alex Pretti contradicts the American values the administration campaigned on. He was neither a domestic terrorist nor an assassin,” Garcia wrote.
“Allowing individuals like Stephen Miller, among others, who represent the government and make hard-line decisions, to make such comments will have long-term consequences. … This is not what I voted for!” she added.
Garcia’s criticism carries weight within Republican circles. She helped rally Latina voters for Trump during his 2016 campaign and later served in the Department of Homeland Security during his first term. While she has consistently supported deportations of criminal illegal immigrants and stronger border controls, she has previously warned against what she called “inhumane” tactics used to meet deportation quotas, arguing that they undermine public trust and conservative messaging on law and order.
Her remarks highlight a broader debate within the GOP as Republicans campaign on border security ahead of November’s high-stakes midterms. While voters continue to rank immigration and public safety among their top concerns, some party leaders are increasingly wary that overheated rhetoric—especially following deadly confrontations—could distract from Republicans’ core argument: restoring order at the border, enforcing the law, and keeping communities safe.
As fallout from the Minnesota shootings continues, political observers warn that how Republicans handle immigration enforcement—and how they talk about it—may prove just as important as the policies themselves in determining control of Congress this fall.
Construction continues on new border wall system project near Yuma, AZ. Recently constructed border wall near Yuma, Arizona on June 3, 2020. CBP photo by Jerry Glaser.
In a disappointing turn for border security advocates, the Texas Legislature has officially canceled the state’s ambitious effort to build its own border wall — a project that Gov. Greg Abbott hailed in 2021 as a bold step toward protecting Texans in the absence of meaningful federal action. Despite allocating more than $3 billion to the initiative, only about 65 miles of wall — much of it scattered in rural areas — has been completed.
Gov. Abbott launched the state-funded wall project in December 2021 after Biden administration inaction left Texans on the front lines of an escalating border crisis. At the time, Texas was the first state to attempt such a massive undertaking — one born out of necessity as illegal crossings surged and federal authorities turned a blind eye.
Standing beside towering steel beams at the border, Abbott made it clear that Texas would do what President Biden refused to: secure the southern border. “It’s heavy and it’s wide,” he said. “People aren’t making it through those steel bars.” He was right — but it turns out they didn’t have to. Thanks to landowner restrictions, bureaucratic red tape, and court battles, the wall was never continuous. Instead, it became a patchwork of isolated segments that migrants — and cartels — could easily walk around.
According to The Texas Tribune, only 8% of the 805 miles identified for construction have been completed. Those segments — largely concentrated on privately owned ranches — often sit in remote areas with lower migrant traffic. In other words, the federal government’s refusal to act left the state with the toughest and most expensive terrain, forcing Texas to play defense on the hardest frontlines with both hands tied.
And while the total cost of the wall project now stands at more than $3 billion, legislators pulled the plug quietly, slipping the decision into the final state budget without debate or public notice.
The 2025-26 state budget, passed in early June, includes a substantial $3.4 billion allocation for border security — but none of that will fund further wall construction. Instead, those resources are being redirected to Operation Lone Star, Abbott’s ongoing border crackdown that mobilizes Texas Department of Public Safety officers and National Guard troops to deter illegal crossings and apprehend migrants.
Sen. Joan Huffman (R), who led budget negotiations, defended the shift, stating that wall construction “should have always been a function of the federal government.” Texas had stepped up, she said, because Washington had failed — and continued to fail.
Some GOP lawmakers have raised concerns not about the need for border security, but about the strategic wisdom of funding isolated wall segments. Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) questioned whether lawmakers were spending billions “to give the appearance of doing something rather than taking the problem on to actually solve it.” Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) was more blunt, calling it a “hamster wheel” strategy.
Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
On Wednesday, Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) introduced articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Kelly outlined three impeachment articles against the secretary, accusing Noem of obstruction of Congress, “violation of public trust” and “self-dealing.”
“Secretary Noem has brought her reign of terror to the Chicagoland area, L.A., New Orleans, Charlotte, Durham, and communities north to south to east to west,” Kelly said at the press conference. “She needs to be held accountable for her actions.”
The first impeachment article alleges Noem denied Kelly and other members of Congress “oversight of ICE detention facilities,” the congresswoman said at her presser.
Kelly explained the second article, which accuses Noem of violating public trust, by saying Noem “directed DHS agents to arrest people without warrants, use tear gas against citizens, and ignore due process.”
Kelly said Noem frequently says “she’s taking murderers and rapists off our streets, but none of the 614 people arrested during Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago has been charged or convicted of murder or rape.”
On the third impeachment article, which accuses the secretary of self-dealing, Kelly said Noem “abused her power for personal benefit,” and “steered a federal contract to a new firm run by a friend.”
Kelly announced her intention to file the impeachment articles last week, after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis.
Jonathan Ross, ICE agent who shot Good in her car last week in Minneapolis, experienced internal bleeding as a result of the encounter, officials claim.
In video shot by an eyewitness, Ross and other ICE agents were seen approaching Good’s red Honda Pilot as she blocked a road during an ICE operation. When one of the agents ordered Good to “get out of the f*cking car” and stuck his hands in the vehicle, she tried to drive off. That’s when Ross, who was in front of the car, fired off three shots. Good was pronounced dead a short time later.
The Trump administration has argued that the shooting was justified as self-defense, going so far as to call Good a “deranged leftist” and “domestic terrorist” who was looking to harm federal agents.
Video shows Ross walking away on his own after firing the fatal shots. Noem said at the time that he was hospitalized, but she did not specify his injuries.
The congresswoman said that as of Wednesday morning the measure has the support of almost 70 members of Congress.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) brushed off the impeachment effort as “silly.”
“How silly during a serious time. As ICE officers are facing a 1,300% increase in assaults against them, Rep. Kelly is more focused on showmanship and fundraising clicks than actually cleaning up her crime-ridden Chicago district,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement to The Hill.
“We hope she would get serious about doing her job to protect American people, which is what this Department is doing under Secretary Noem.”
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
On Monday, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction against the Trump administration, allowing it to move ahead with its plans to end protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants in the U.S.
The decision is a victory for the Trump administration, allowing it to move forward with its plans to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for hundreds of thousands of people who came to the U.S. through parole processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.
The TPS program provides legal status and work permits for these individuals.
🚨BREAKING: The Supreme Court has cleared the Trump administration to revoke legal status from 500,000+ criminal aliens flown in under the Biden regime.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this week to crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions impeding federal immigration enforcement.
The directive requires the Justice Department to compile a list of all sanctuary city jurisdictions and then take action to cut off or suspend federal funding to those places. Under Trump, cities across the country, like Boston, have already made it difficult for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to apprehend illegal immigrants.
“This invasion at the southern border requires the Federal Government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the States,” Trump wrote in the executive order. “Yet some State and local officials nevertheless continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws. This is a lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law and the Federal Government’s obligation to defend the territorial sovereignty of the United States.”
After the list of sanctuary jurisdictions is published, those entities would be given the chance to comply with federal law. If they don’t comply, they could lose federal funding.
The executive order also directs the Justice Department and Homeland Security to ensure that federal benefits are not provided to illegals in sanctuary jurisdictions and to “take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens that are unlawful, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable.”
Earlier this month, Trump called sanctuary jurisdictions “death traps” and promised to cut off federal funding.
“No more Sanctuary Cities! They protect the Criminals, not the Victims. They are disgracing our Country and are being mocked all over the World,” he posted on Truth Social. “Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!”
While contrasting the Biden and Trump administrations, border czar Homan said that between 11,000-15,000 people were crossing the border illegally per day this time of the year under Biden, while under Trump, just 178 had crossed in the last 24 hours. During the same time, he said there were 1,800 known “gotaways” under Biden, compared to just 38 under Trump. Homan added that from January 20 to April 1, 2024, Biden released 184,000 illegals out of federal custody into the country. The Trump administration has only released nine total, including four so they could testify in criminal cases and four with extreme medical conditions.
In total, Homan said that there have been 139,000 deportations under Trump. He added that the administration was prioritizing the estimated 700,000 illegals who have been charged with crimes.
Illegal Immigration in the United State via Wikimedia Commons
According to new reports, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller delivered a blunt ultimatum to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) leadership in mid-May: ramp up arrests to 3,000 per day or face personnel changes.
During a tense meeting at ICE headquarters in Washington, D.C., Miller reportedly warned that regional offices failing to meet the target would see their leadership replaced. Sources familiar with the meeting said Miller left no room for interpretation — improved numbers weren’t encouraged, they were mandatory. (RELATED: Legal Battle May Reveal Big Payouts Tied To Biden’s Border Policies)
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, also in attendance, struck a more measured tone. Still, the message was clear, according to NBC News: immigration enforcement efforts must intensify and take precedence:
Misdemeanor cases for border crossings are regularly appearing in federal court, a rarity in recent years. Justice Department teams focused on other issues are being disbanded, with members being dispersed to teams focused on immigration and other administration priorities.
And prosecutors say cases without immigration components have stalled or are moving more slowly, according to documents seen by NBC News and conversations with six current and former prosecutors and a senior FBI official, who described how immigration is now a central part of discussions around whether to pursue cases.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“Immigration status is now question No. 1 in terms of charging decisions,” an assistant U.S. attorney said. “Is this person a documented immigrant? Is this person an undocumented immigrant? Is this person a citizen? Are they somehow deportable? What is their immigration status? And the answer to that question is now largely driving our charging decisions.”
At least one U.S. attorney’s office abandoned a potential federal prosecution of someone who prosecutors felt was dangerous because the case against the person lacked an immigration component, an email obtained by NBC News showed. The office instead left the case to state prosecutors.
Mobilizing National Resources
Following the confrontation, ICE launched “Operation At Large,” a coast-to-coast initiative designed to supercharge apprehensions. The scale is unprecedented. Over 21,000 National Guard troops and 250 IRS agents have been folded into the effort, alongside thousands of ICE and federal law enforcement personnel. (RELATED: Police Case That Fueled 2020 Protests Returns To Supreme Court)
The operation’s reach has required coordination across agencies, pulling FBI and DOJ resources away from their usual focus areas and toward immigration-related priorities.
The Daily Mailhas more on Miller’s dramatic call to action:
He then reportedly gave them an open challenge and asked: ‘Why aren’t you at Home Depot? Why aren’t you at 7-Eleven?’
Miller further pushed, getting into what an official called a ‘p***ing contest,’ saying: ‘What do you mean you’re going after criminals?’
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
In a statement to the Examiner, ICE deputy assistant director of media affairs Laszlo Baksay said the descriptions were ‘inaccurate.’
However, the conservative-leaning outlet cited sources within ICE and DHS who claimed Miller’s remarks further eroded morale among rank-and-file agents, which was already low.
“He had nothing positive to say about anybody,” one official told the paper, describing the mood following Miller’s visit.
Another source painted a darker picture of the internal climate confronting ICE agents:
“They’ve been threatened, told they’re watching their emails and texts and Signals. That’s what is horrible about things right now. It’s a fearful environment. Everybody in leadership is afraid. There’s no morale. Everybody is demoralized.”
Despite the backlash, Miller defended the administration’s approach during an appearance with Sean Hannity, insisting the 3,000-arrest-per-day quota is only a temporary benchmark — and warning that agents should be prepared for that figure to rise.
Localized operations have revealed just how expansive the crackdown has become since Miller and Noem appeared at Potomac Center Plaza in Southwest D.C. Across the nation, agents have ramped up early-morning sweeps and workplace raids, often coordinated with minimal local notification. In Florida, a weeklong action labeled “Operation Tidal Wave” resulted in 1,120 arrests — the largest ICE enforcement action ever recorded in a single state.
Tennessee saw similar efforts, with 196 arrests in the Nashville area. The local response was sharply critical. Nashville’s mayor denounced the operation as out of step with the city’s values and implemented policies limiting cooperation with ICE. Republicans in Congress are now investigating whether the mayor’s office leaked information about ICE agents — a serious charge with national implications.
Focus on Career Criminals — But Collateral Arrests Are Rising
Officially, the crackdown targets individuals with criminal records or prior deportation orders. But internal ICE guidance reportedly encourages officers to make “collateral arrests” — detaining illegal immigrants encountered in the field, even if they weren’t the original target and have no criminal history.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/us_icegov/54295293536/in/photostream/, Creative Commons Attribution-Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal (CC BY-NC-SA 1.0)
The broader approach has raised legal and logistical concerns, as well as fears of potential overreach, according to immigrant advocacy groups.
Leadership Purge Signals Internal Pressure
It also hasn’t come without fallout inside ICE. Two senior officials — Kenneth Genalo and Robert Hammer — have been removed from their posts in recent weeks. Sources say the firings reflect internal friction over how aggressively to pursue the administration’s ambitious targets. They also serve as a warning to others who might be perceived as resistant to the push.
White House: Fulfilling the Mandate, Critics Question the Cost
The administration stands by the operation. Officials say it delivers on President Trump’s second-term promise: to secure the border and remove criminal illegal aliens.
Still, questions remain. Legal scholars are raising red flags over the breadth of federal involvement, and local-federal cooperation is growing more strained. As the operation continues, so does the debate — over strategy, law, and the real-world impact on communities nationwide.
A second federal judge moved to block President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship Wednesday.
Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, ruled that the order is likely unconstitutional. This marks the second time a federal court has blocked the policy. The nationwide injunction is slated to remain in place while the case is adjudicated.
Boardman said the civil rights group plaintiffs, five pregnant women whose children would not be granted citizenship under the order, were likely to succeed on the merits. The plaintiffs are represented by the CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.
Trump’s executive order seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the country unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The administration argues that children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Trump signed Executive Order 14156, titledProtecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, on his first day in office. The order seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents, but it has already encountered significant legal pushback.
Judge Coughenour issued a restraining order against its implementation, siding with several states that argued the executive action violates the 14th Amendment and contradicts long-standing Supreme Court rulings.
The executive order was set to take effect in February, marking a bold attempt to reshape the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has guaranteed citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil since its ratification in 1868. Many legal experts, however, argue that any effort to alter this constitutional guarantee would require far more than an executive order.
The Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) affirmed that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ nationality. This precedent has formed the legal backbone of birthright citizenship for over a century.
