No
A Presidential Executive Order directs the executive branch on how to implement the laws in the Constitution, those passed by Congress, and the common law, as defined by the Courts. This is a perfectly legitimate use of the Chief Executive's power- the Executive branch's role is to govern the country under the law, and they usually have discretion as to exactly how they do that.
For example, imagine that the legislature passes a law requiring all cyclists over the age of 15 to hold a cycling licence - this would probably be state-level law in the USA, but the principle is the same. The law may specify an implementation timetable and lay out penalties for non-compliance, etc., but it's unlike to specify precisely what they have to look like, whether they can be digital, or which part of the government has to do this (the part that deals with driver's licences would be an obvious choice, but it doesn't have to be). Where the law is silent, the executive branch of government has to work out the details and legally has the discretion to do so - as long as they do so following the law ...
Just saying it doesn't make it true
Now, a President can make whatever Executive Orders they like. Still, an order that exceeds the President's power or violates the Constitution, a statute, or a court-decided part of the common law will be invalid.
When an order is implemented, a person affected by it (having "standing") can challenge its implementation. The first step may be an administrative review (if the law allows that), where one part of the executive reviews the decision to ensure the decision-maker followed the law. Once any administrative processes have been exhausted, the affected person can get a judicial review where the courts will examine the order and its implementation and have the power to declare either or both invalid.
Birthright Citizenship
The fourteenth amendment says (in part):
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
An Executive Order, or even an Act of Congress, can't contradict that; if you are born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", you're a citizen. No matter what the President says.
Trump's "redefinition" of birthright citizenship to exclude the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is based on the position that those aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States". The order says:
Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
Now, as the law currently stands, this interpretation is wrong.
The relevant case here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
So, the Supreme Court has said that there are only two classes of people (excluding Indians) who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States:
- "children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation"
- "children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State"
Neither of the groups identified in the order falls into those two categories.
Now, technically, this is not binding precedent because it is obiter dictum as what was said is not absolutely necessary for the court to have reached the decision that it did: Wong Kim Ark's parents were lawfully living in the US, and so defining categories that they didn't fit into was not material in determining the outcome of the case - cut this paragraph out of the decision, and the result is the same. But ... this is obiter from the Supreme Court and when the Supreme Court says something, they mean for it to be heard and followed by all subordinate courts.
What happens next?
This.
A suit has been lodged in the US District Court for New Hampshire, calling on the court to declare the order unconstitutional and to permanently enjoin its enforcement. No matter who wins in the District Court, this will be appealed up the chain until it lands on the doorstep of the Supreme Court.
In regular times, the Supreme Court, under the principle of stare decisis, would follow its own decision and reaffirm that the law of the land is what it has been since they spoke on it 127 years ago and declare the order unconstitutional. However, this Supreme Court has a habit of overturning what had previously been settled law, so maybe they'll decide that the court in 1898 got it wrong and that the President in 2025 got it right.
