Does the latest court defeat end Trump’s fight over ‘birth tourism’?

Trump signed two related executive orders on 6 August. According to the [White House](https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/08/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-ends-birth-tourism-and-protects-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/), one sought to identify additional exceptions to citizenship at birth, while the other directed the State and Homeland Security departments to intensify action against what the administration calls “birth tourism”.

The citizenship order went beyond the traditional exception for children of accredited diplomats. It instructed federal agencies to withhold citizenship documents in several situations, including when a parent was deemed an “alien enemy”, worked for a foreign government or international organisation, or entered a commercial arrangement intended to obtain citizenship through a birth in the United States. Its language also included US-based surrogacy arrangements.

That breadth mattered to the court. As [Associated Press reported](https://apnews.com/article/birthright-citizenship-immigration-trump-blocked-69de0a404602a6e648b35f6a852c833d), some plaintiffs feared that an ordinary transaction such as buying an airline ticket could later be treated as evidence of a plan to purchase access to citizenship. The government argued that the challenge came too early because agencies had not yet issued all their implementation guidance. Boardman rejected that position, reasoning that the executive order itself directed agencies to deny documents to covered children.

The administration presents the measures differently. Its stated position is that citizenship is being exploited by commercial operators and foreign visitors who arrange a US birth specifically to secure a passport for a child. The White House describes stronger entry controls as protection for both the immigration system and the value of citizenship. That policy argument remains politically potent, even though the courts have distinguished the government’s authority to police entry and fraud from its ability to deny citizenship after a child is born under US jurisdiction.

This distinction is the most useful one for prospective parents. The Supreme Court’s [June 2026 decision in Trump v. Barbara](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_new_5if6.pdf) reaffirmed a broad constitutional rule of jus soli: with narrow historical exceptions, a child born on US soil and subject to US law is a citizen at birth. Boardman’s ruling applies that principle to the class before her.

It does not follow that a pregnant visitor must be admitted. US authorities have long treated obtaining a visitor visa primarily to give birth for citizenship purposes as an improper basis for that visa, and border officers retain admission powers. The administration’s separate [Ending Birth Tourism order](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/08/ending-birth-tourism/) directs further enforcement at the entry stage. The Maryland injunction therefore should not be read as travel advice or as protection against questioning, refusal of a visa or refusal of admission.

As of 3 September 2026, Belgium’s [SPF Affaires étrangères](https://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/pays/etats-unis/voyager-aux-etats-unis-conseils-aux-voyageurs/informations-pratiques-pour-voyager-aux-etats-unis) says eligible Belgian passport holders may use ESTA for tourism and certain short visits, normally for no more than 90 days. It also stresses that ESTA authorisation never guarantees admission: US Customs and Border Protection makes the final decision at the frontier. Anyone travelling during pregnancy should verify the current requirements with the US Embassy in Brussels or US Customs and Border Protection and be ready to explain the genuine purpose of the trip, arrangements for medical care and how costs will be paid.

US citizenship does not automatically complete the Belgian paperwork. The [SPF Affaires étrangères](https://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/pour-les-belges-letranger/etat-civil/naissance) says a birth abroad must first be declared to the local authority, which normally issues the birth certificate. A recognised foreign certificate may then be entered in Belgium’s civil-status database, the BAEC, through the competent officier de l’état civil at the family’s commune or, in some circumstances, through a Belgian career consulate. The document may require an apostille and a translation.

Language is practical rather than cosmetic here. A resident of a French-speaking commune will normally deal with the service de l’état civil; in Flanders, the equivalent is the dienst burgerlijke stand of the gemeente. Brussels residents should follow the language procedures of their commune. An English-language US certificate may need translation into French, Dutch or German by an accepted sworn translator, depending on the receiving authority’s instructions.

Nationality depends on the Belgian parent’s circumstances. The federal Justice service explains that a child born abroad to a Belgian parent who was also born abroad may require a formal declaration attributing Belgian nationality before the child turns five. That declaration is made at the parent’s commune or gemeente when resident in Belgium, or at the competent Belgian embassy or consulate when resident abroad. Parents should confirm their own case rather than assume that either the US passport or the Belgian connection resolves both nationalities automatically.

The next legal step is likely to be an appeal by the administration while the Maryland class action proceeds. Courts will also have to define how far the executive branch may pursue entry controls and fraud investigations without converting those powers into a post-birth denial of citizenship. Until those questions are resolved, travellers should treat the court ruling as constitutional protection for affected children—not as permission to organise a birth-related visit.