House Speaker Mike Johnson says 14th Amendment has been “devalued” by “birthright tourism,” urges Congress to act after Supreme Court decision

House Speaker Mike Johnson said the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has been “devalued” by what he called “birthright tourism,” arguing that the issue poses “a threat to the rule of law and national security.” Speaking Sunday on Fox News Sunday, Johnson said the House and Congress “need to address it” after President Donald Trump called on lawmakers to act following a recent Supreme Court decision related to birthright citizenship.

Johnson’s comments tied to the Supreme Court’s handling of a Trump administration effort to limit birthright citizenship, which The Hill reported the majority addressed by requiring a constitutional amendment for any change. Johnson praised Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent, which Johnson said explained the 14th Amendment’s original purpose was to “enhance” the “dignity and glory” of citizenship.

In Johnson’s account, the dispute is now partly a question of congressional authority and constitutional procedure. Johnson said that if there is a bill that can “fix” the issue, Congress should “advance that immediately,” but he added that if the solution is passing and ratifying a constitutional amendment, it would “take more time,” reflecting the difficulty of altering the Constitution’s text through the Article V process.

The Hill reported that President Trump, after the Supreme Court decision, urged Congress to begin work on ending what he described as expensive and unfair birthright citizenship. The outlet also reported Trump framed the effort as one that could proceed without “No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment,” and said lawmakers would have his “complete and total support,” directing the message to Congress to act.

The Supreme Court issue referenced by Johnson and Trump has centered on whether an executive-branch approach limiting birthright citizenship could be implemented without a constitutional amendment. While Johnson and Trump discussed the decision’s implications, this report is limited to their public statements as reported by The Hill, and does not confirm the precise legal reasoning beyond what that outlet described.

Separately, Newsweek, the Washington Examiner, and The Independent also published coverage of the birthright citizenship dispute and reactions, including discussion of Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent and competing interpretations of what the Citizenship Clause requires, according to their reported summaries. Those accounts were not independently verified in this write-up with court filings or the Supreme Court’s opinion text.

The next step for Congress would depend on how lawmakers choose to respond to the constitutional question described in the reporting. If Congress pursues ordinary legislation, any measure would need to comply with the interpretation of the 14th Amendment described by the Court, while any path requiring constitutional change would entail a longer Article V timeline and additional political negotiation.

Taken together, Johnson’s remarks underscore that House Republicans are treating the Supreme Court’s ruling as a prompt for legislative action and potentially a separate constitutional process, while Trump’s message is focused on immediate congressional engagement rather than relying solely on executive action. The specific legislative vehicle, timing, and text were not identified in the provided reporting.