The 14th Amendment is in no way being challenged, only the interpretation of one phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
An unindicted criminal, i.e., an “undocumented” alien, otherwise known as an illegal immigrant, has NO standing within the US jurisdiction.
The definition of a “natural-born citizen” has never been adequately defined.
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, California, of Chinese parents, subjects of the Chinese Emperor, while in the US as legal residents. It was determined that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was the determining factor in awarding Wong the “natural-born citizen” category, not otherwise defined EXCEPT in this case law.
The whole Executive Order route is aimed at getting the determination of “natural-born citizen” put to the question once and for all before the US Supreme Court.
Just like with "immigrants" vs "illegal aliens", those who support place of birth regardless of immigration status as a Constitutionally sanctioned path to citizenship attempt to confuse the issue (i.e., "clarification" vs "amendment").
The 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”, which was intended to exclude foreigners and their children. Foreign parents are under the jurisdiction of another government, not the US.
(That’s what distinguishes them as foreigners.) Most governments extend their jurisdiction to the children of their citizens, thus, the children should not qualify for US citizenship.