Some U.S. couples could face a minimum of $3,000 in a “birth tax” under President Trump’s executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship
, according to a cost analysis conducted by a non-partisan think tank.
At least another $1,500 would go for legal fees associated with completing the government form — or one like it — if Trump’s executive order
were to go into effect for children born in the U.S. to parents who are not Americans or legal permanent residents.
The fees compiled by NFAP are contingent on Trump’s executive action clearing legal hurdles
. The birthright citizenship executive order is currently under a temporary nationwide ban
, but the Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the ban
. The nation’s highest court has not yet ruled on the matter.
President Trump displays an executive order he signed March 26. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)
Margaret Stock, an immigration and citizenship attorney with Cascadia Cross Border Law Group
who worked with NFAP on the study, told NewsNation that the $3,000 estimate is “very conservative”.
She said families could pay much more depending on how complicated the immigration status of the child’s parents is considered by government officials and other unforeseen costs.
To determine estimated costs, Stock said NFAP used the fees associated with the N-600 citizenship form
that is used by parents in the U.S. whose children are born overseas but are seeking American citizenship and are required to file paperwork with USCIS.
However, she predicts that paving a road where a “birth tax” becomes a reality for immigrant parents is far from completion due to the unsettled nature of the legality of Trump’s order.
“There’s no existing process in place to do what the president wants to do,” Stock said.
What Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship does
The order prevents
U.S. government agencies from issuing citizenship to anyone when the person’s mother is not in the country legally or was temporarily legal at the time of the child’s birth and if the person’s father is not a U.S. citizen or a legal resident at the time of the child’s birth.
In this 2016 photo, a woman in Sullivan City, Texas, who said she entered the country illegally, walks with her daughter who was born in the United States but was denied a birth certificate. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)
In the executive order, Trump wrote that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
, which affords U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the country, has never been interpreted
to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the nation’s borders.
The order was immediately met with legal challenges
filed by attorneys general in 22 states and by immigrant advocacy groups, which sued the Trump administration over his sweeping immigration actions
since returning to the White House.
Attorneys for the Trump administration argued the order should only be blocked in states where judges have ruled against the order’s legality and constitutionality.
How costly would ending birthright citizenship be to expecting parents?
Stock first calculated the costs to prospective parents affected by birthright citizenship in 2012, when she was debating the topic and first collaborated with NFAP
on the cost analysis, which estimated the “birth tax” at the time would be around $1,600.
Now, in addition to fees nearly doubled from the initial study, NFAP believes biometrics would have to be submitted to USCIS or another agency to confirm the baby’s identity, a test which currently costs $85 per person, Stuart Anderson, NFAP’s executive director wrote for Forbes
.
Anderson told NewsNation that the Trump administration has not provided details about how it plans to verify whether a child is a U.S. citizen
. He said the administration will likely not allow for an honor system in which the parents are taken at their word about their own citizenship status
.
The Trump administration and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not immediately respond to requests for comment from NewsNation about the NFAP cost estimates.
Even more costs could be added if the parents and newborn babies were required to appear in person at the Social Security Administration or if DNA tests are needed to determine the baby’s father, Stock said.
The Alaska-based immigration attorney said she has been involved in some citizenship cases in which parents paid upwards of $50,000 in fees to settle their child’s citizenship, making the $3,000 figure a bare minimum parents could pay.
“I don’t think (the Trump administration) is paying any attention to the economic costs at all,” Stock told NewsNation. “We’re talking about a wholesale change to the entire system for acknowledging people’s citizenship in America and there’s no bureaucracy in place to do any of this.”
In December 1941, my great-great grandfather, Sawaichi Fujita, a 58-year-old tinsmith who had lived in Hawaii for 36 years, was torn away from his family, marking the first of his 1,432 days incarcerated by the U.S. government. Invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798
, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of him and thousands
of others based on their ancestry. When he finally returned home after World War II, my grandfather said he was never the same.
The latest in politics and policy.
Direct to your inbox.
Sign up for the Opinion newsletter
Four decades later, the commission’s findings are more relevant than ever.
On Day 1 of his second administration, President Trump ordered
the State and Homeland Security Departments to prepare for him to put into effect the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — the same law used to intern my great-great grandfather and 31,000 other noncitizens of Japanese, German and Italian descent during World War II. When he invoked
the archaic wartime authority on March 15, Trump sought to target members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang.
In reality, judges, lawyers and journalists have found that the administration used the act to disappear immigrants to a maximum-security mega-prison in El Salvador with little if any evidence of gang membership or criminal history. The majority have no criminal records
and some were in the middle of asylum case proceedings
. Mere tattoos, including an autism awareness ribbon
and the words “mom” and “dad” beside crowns
, were used to justify some removals.
The Trump administration’s actions have upended human rights and basic due process. Immigrants are being held incommunicado, unable to contact their families or access lawyers
. Alone and terrified, they do not know how long they will be held in detention after being taken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or where they are being sent when boarded onto a plane in chains.
Trump’s executive orders declaring an “invasion,”barring refugees
from seeking safety
, and getting rid of the few legal migration pathways
available have laid the groundwork for mass raids and deportations across the country of longtime residents and newcomers alike. To defend these illegal and cruel actions, Trump and top White House officials are falsely conflating
all immigrants with criminality
and threats to the country. This is the same kind of rhetoric that motivated our national stain of internment.
Meanwhile, Congress has put forward a budget resolution that cuts food assistance and health care to build more border walls and detention centers. If passed, ICE will have billions of dollars
more to arrest our loved ones, neighbors and coworkers at job sites, schools, places of worship and their homes. Far too many are mothers and fathers who pose no risk to public safety but are nevertheless considered a threat and a “criminal.” These arrests are eerily parallel to the FBI rounding up Japanese, German and Italian community leaders after Pearl Harbor.
During World War II, the United States used the Alien Enemies Act and Executive Order 9066 to undercut civil rights and imprison innocent people and families in squalid camps. Using the Alien Enemies Act today to usurp our existing immigration laws and scapegoat immigrants repeats this shameful chapter. Congress should pass the Neighbors Not Enemies Act
, which would finally repeal the Alien Enemies Act and prevent its abuse to target immigrants and deport them without basic due process.
Politicians are once again sowing fear and xenophobia under the guise of national security. For the memory of my great-great-grandfather Sawaichi Fujita, and the thousands more that suffered this indignity 80 years ago, we must urgently act to stop repeating one of the darkest episodes in U.S. history.
Kimiko Hirota is the associate director of policy at Church World Service.
In the first quarter of 2025 alone, more than 170 aviation accidents occurred in the U.S., with 22 resulting in fatalities and 109 deaths
. As a pilot and executive in the aviation industry with 27 years of experience, I am often asked: Why are there so many accidents and incidents in aviation today? To answer this, we must look deeper into the hidden risks that are silently accumulating — risks that are directly tied to growing traffic, an influx of new pilots, outdated infrastructure, and a lack of proactive risk management.
Although aviation remains the safest form of travel, the increase in air traffic and the aging infrastructure of the National Airspace System are combining to create an environment ripe for accidents. This is no coincidence. It’s the result of not proactively addressing the risks inherent in a system that was designed decades ago and is now under strain. Like road traffic, where more cars on the road lead to more accidents, the same principle applies to airspace. As traffic increases at already congested airports, so does the risk of mid-air collisions, near misses, and other dangerous incidents.
Let’s look at the facts: Traffic at major airports continues to rise
, new pilots are entering the system at a fast pace, and the tools available to FAA controllers and air traffic management systems remain woefully outdated. When these elements are combined with unpredictable weather, the consequences can be disastrous. The increased risk is not being sufficiently addressed, and this failure to mitigate these growing factors directly correlates to the increase in aviation accidents.
Take, for example, the tragic mid-air collision over the Potomac River in January 2025, which killed 67. The crash occurred because of a failure to manage airspace risks in real time — a lack of proactive monitoring and risk assessment tools. The airspace in that region is congested with both commercial and military aircraft. This was not an isolated event. In the months leading up to the crash, there were multiple near-misses reported in the same airspace. If the FAA had the tools to assess these risks proactively, this tragedy could have been avoided.
Without modern tools to identify and mitigate risks proactively, we continue to rely on past data and reactive responses. This outdated approach to risk management is simply no longer enough. We are seeing the cost of this inaction: The Delta Connection flight 4819, which crashed upon landing in Toronto in February 2025, injured 17 people. The incident highlights how the aviation system is starting to crack under the pressure of rising traffic and inadequate airspace management tools. When we fail to act — when we don’t address the risks — these types of incidents are the tragic result.
The solution is clear: we must adopt proactive risk management systems that can provide real-time risk analysis and ensure that pilots and controllers are supported by the latest tools and data. New platforms have been developed that link existing tools within the National Airspace System to provide a more comprehensive, real-time analysis of airspace — platforms that can assess critical risk points by combining flight data, weather conditions, and communication between pilots and controllers, helping to prevent accidents before they occur.
By integrating such tools, we can address the growing traffic challenges and support the increased number of new pilots entering the workforce. This is about more than just monitoring safety; it’s about proactively identifying risks and addressing them head-on before they lead to accidents.
As an aviation industry veteran, I see the potential for safer skies, but it requires a commitment to modernizing our airspace management systems. The hazards of flying will always exist, but the tools we use to manage those hazards must evolve to meet the demands of today’s aviation world.
If we continue to fail to address the growing risks in a proactive manner, we will see more tragedies. Now is the time to act, and innovative companies are now offering the necessary solutions to ensure that the next aviation incident is prevented before it happens.
Michael McCready is an executive in the aviation industry with over 27 years of experience as both a pilot and businessman.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has stepped up his role on President Trump’s economic team, taking center stage on the president’s plans for tariffs.
Bessent spearheaded the roll out of Trump’s 90-day pause on hefty tariffs on trading partners, briefly calming the markets amid increasing pressure from Wall Street for the trade team to shift gears towards negotiating.
The Treasury secretary has emerged as the leading voice on trade, winning the microphone from top tariff hawks in the administration, including trade adviser Peter Navarro — a development that Republican lawmakers are cheering on vociferously.
“He is a voice that is reassuring and calm when it comes to the news of the day, particularly with regard to what’s happening in the economy and the issues on trade and taxes,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Hill.
“I just think that people see him as somebody who speaks with credibility and in a tone that I think captures what the president’s trying to accomplish, but in a way that is not only understandable, but acceptable to the American people,” he added.
One longtime GOP lobbyist added that Bessent, along with Kevin Hassett, the head of the National Economic Council, are the business community’s “great hope” in the administration to keep it from “fully going over the protectionist cliff” in what has already become an internal tug-of-war.
While markets surged after the pause was announced, there’s still major turbulence that will likely remain with the 10 percent tariffs and exorbitant duties on China in place. That was especially the case on Thursday as Wall Street kept up its post-Liberation Day sell-off. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dipped more than 1,000 points, while the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq fell more than three and four percent, respectively.
When asked how people are feeling about the Trump tariffs with Bessent at the helm, one source close to Trump world replied, “Up, down all around. Shaken and stirred — the Trump way.”
Bessent, the founder and former CEO of hedge fund Key Square Group, was tasked with leading negotiations in which the White House says about 75 countries had already approached the administration to make a deal on tariffs. Bessent attributed that to the decision to impose the 90-day pause on the higher bracket of tariffs.
As soon as Trump announced the pause, Bessent and press secretary Karoline Leavitt emerged from the White House to explain the decision to the reporters.
In a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Bessent took a victory lap while sitting across from the president.
“Countries call me up — ‘Secretary Bessent, we’re happy you’re negotiating.’ Well, President Trump is going to be negotiating too,” Bessent said, describing what he conveys to world leaders.
It was clear Trump also relished in world leaders coming to him to strike a deal, telling Republican lawmakers at a campaign dinner the night before he imposed the pause that countries were essentially groveling to him.
“These countries are all calling us up, kissing my ass. They are dying to make a deal. ‘Please, please sir make a deal. I’ll do anything, I’ll do anything, sir,” Trump said.
The president on Thursday said Lutnick, who was a major part of the roll out of reciprocal tariffs, is also working on negotiations with trading partners. And, a White House official told The Hill that Bessent, as well as Lutnick and Navarro, are still involved in trade matters and that no one has been sidelined.
While Bessent was active on tariffs this week, he also was on Capitol Hill meeting with GOP lawmakers about party unity and the Senate’s framework that will be used to enact key parts of Trump’s legislative agenda, which the House passed
on Thursday morning.
That work has paid off, specifically with lawmakers who overwhelmingly believe in him with economic matters over the likes of Lutnick and Navarro. While describing that level of trust, one Senate Republican argued that at least 95 percent side with him, Hassett and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer — adding that it’s possible that figure might even be too low.
“He’s clever. He’s experienced. He exercises power materially. He thinks before he speaks,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who had lunch with Bessent earlier this week and knew him prior to his time at Treasury. “He understands that wisdom requires you to say nothing — not go on a news show and say stuff that you don’t know anything about [or] looks like something the dog brought up.”
“With some of these economists, I listen to them talk and I think if you wanted to hide something from them you’d hide it in a book on economics,” Kennedy continued. “I think he knows what he’s talking about. I’m not saying he’s perfect, but he doesn’t try to be clairvoyant in a way that undermines his integrity.”
The White House defended the entire trade team in a statement.
“President Trump has assembled the best and most experienced trade and economic team in modern American history with unique insights from the private sector, government, and academia. Every member of the administration is aligned on playing from one playbook, President Trump’s playbook, to use tariffs and strike custom-tailored trade deals to finally end America’s national emergency of chronic trade deficits,” White House spokesman Kush Desai told The Hill.
The idea of a 90-day pause was first publicly suggested by billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, who said on Sunday that Trump should hit the brakes on implementing tariffs. After the announcement, Ackman thanked the president on X
and added, “@SecScottBessent
rocks!”
The corporate world sees Bessent as redeeming relative to the Trump loyalists, like Navarro and top adviser Stephen Miller.
“The business community sees Peter Navarro and Stephen Miller as jeopardizing 200 years of economic growth and free enterprise. So anybody who pushes back even a little with the president, like Secretary Bessent, is going to be seen as a possible savior,” a GOP lobbyist told The Hill.
“Last time around there were lots of ‘normal’ voices like [former director of the national economic council] Gary Cohn, [former Treasury secretary] Steve Mnuchin , [former deputy national security adviser] Dina Powell and [former aide] Rob Porter to counter the Navarro-Miller view but Bessent doesn’t have nearly as many like-minded allies now,” the lobbyist added.
Cohn, Mnuchin and Powell were all Goldman Sachs alums, making them major players on Wall Street before the Trump administration.
And, while Wall Street expressed a collective sigh of relief on Wednesday when Bessent spearheaded the roll out, there are still questions over if he is a long-term market calmer or if the rally was a one time event.
Some Trump World sources say Trump doesn’t have a Wall Street heavy weight in his Cabinet in the second term. Bessent isn’t a market maker like JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, or even Apollo Global Management co-founder Marc Rowan, who was on Trump’s short list
for Treasury Security, the source close to the White House said.
“I think there’s some sense of, nice guy, but when my business is decimal points [are] different and I’m dealing with the impact of double digit losses … he’s a small fish,” the source added.
The Senate early Friday morning voted to confirm President Trump’s choice to be chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired Lt. Gen. Dan Caine.
The 60 to25 vote came after Democrats, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), blocked a quick passage of Caine’s nomination to protest Trump’s Feb. 21 firing of the previous top military commander, Gen. C.Q. Brown Jr. The senators, who are poised to leave for a two-week recess, argued Brown’s removal was unjustified.
But despite the unexplained firing of Brown, Caine had bipartisan support following a relatively quiet confirmation hearing that had no major objections to him becoming the U.S. military’s top uniformed official. The Senate Armed Services Committee, which oversaw his hearing, voted 23 to 4 to pass his nomination on to the full Senate.
The panel’s chair, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), on Wednesday urged his colleagues to pass Caine “without any delays,” pointing to China’s continued military buildup and adversaries that continue to band together against U.S. interests.
“President Trump should have the expertise of the highest-ranking military officer in place without any delays,” he said in a statement, arguing that Caine “sailed through” the Senate Armed Services Committee’s vote, “an overwhelming, nearly unanimous, bipartisan endorsement.”
The Senate’s passage of Caine’s nomination comes after Trump blindsided the Pentagon and Congress in February with the firing of seven top officials
including Brown and the first female Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti.
Democrats argued the firings were a move by the Trump administration to politicize the historically apolitical U.S. military, seeking to fill top DOD leadership positions with those that wouldn’t dissent from his opinion. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, prior to his current position, had advocated that Brown be fired along with all other “woke” generals involved with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts in the building.
“It sends a chilling message about who is and who is not welcome in our military,” Warren said of the firings at a Senate Armed Services subcommittee hearing on Wednesday.
Caine, however, during his confirmation hearing vowed to serve apolitically, saying that he would not become a “yes man” for Trump if voted through. He also said he would follow U.S. laws and the Constitution, and that he was willing to be fired and would push back if the president asked him to carry out illegal orders.
