A Republican congresswoman has introduced a constitutional amendment that would strip naturalized American citizens — including sitting members of Congress — of the right to hold federal office, igniting a fierce debate over loyalty, identity, and the boundaries of citizenship.

At a Glance

• Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a constitutional amendment to bar naturalized citizens from serving in Congress, the federal judiciary, and Senate-confirmed federal positions.
• The proposal is widely seen as targeting Rep. Ilhan Omar, a naturalized citizen from Somalia, though it would affect all foreign-born officeholders.
• Sitting naturalized lawmakers, including Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Pramila Jayapal, have publicly denounced the measure as an attack on core American principles.
• Passing the amendment would require two-thirds approval in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of states — an extraordinarily high bar.

What Mace Is Proposing

Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit naturalized United States citizens from serving in Congress, the federal judiciary, or any Senate-confirmed federal position. The measure is framed around loyalty and citizenship standards, drawing on the existing constitutional precedent that already bars naturalized citizens from the presidency and vice presidency. Mace has made clear the proposal is aimed specifically at figures like Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a naturalized citizen who emigrated from Somalia.

Currently, the Constitution reserves the “natural born citizen” requirement only for the presidency and vice presidency. All other federal offices, including seats in the House and Senate, are open to naturalized citizens. ^[1] Changing that would require a formal constitutional amendment — a process demanding two-thirds approval in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the fifty states. That threshold makes passage extremely unlikely under any near-term political conditions.

Naturalized Lawmakers Push Back Hard

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, who immigrated to the United States as an infant and became a naturalized citizen, issued a formal statement calling the proposal “a betrayal” and “an affront to one of the most enduring principles of the American story.” ^[2] His objection carries particular weight as a sitting officeholder who would be directly disqualified under the proposed amendment. He argues the measure contradicts the foundational American idea that citizenship, once granted, confers full and equal membership in the civic community.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, also a naturalized citizen, characterized the legislation as openly hostile to immigrants who have gone through the legal process of becoming Americans. ^[3] Both lawmakers represent a broader class of naturalized citizens currently serving in elected and appointed federal roles who would be immediately affected if such an amendment were ever ratified. Their pushback reflects a core tension in the debate: whether legal citizenship should be treated as a tiered status depending on how it was obtained.

A Familiar Fight With Deeper Stakes

This dispute fits a recurring pattern in American political history. When debates about officeholding, loyalty, and national identity move beyond the presidency into the broader federal government, they tend to become proxy fights over who truly belongs. ^[1] The Constitution’s “natural born citizen” clause — written in a very different era — has long been the rhetorical anchor for those who believe foreign birth represents a disqualifying factor for the highest levels of public trust, even when the law itself draws no such line for most offices.

Nancy Mace has proposed a constitutional amendment banning naturalized U.S. citizens from becoming members of Congress or federal judges. https://t.co/k0gjNCCAj1

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) May 21, 2026

For Americans across the political spectrum who are skeptical of government, the proposal raises real questions. Conservatives concerned about national security and divided loyalties may find the underlying argument compelling, even if the legislative vehicle is a long shot. Liberals and independents who see the amendment as discriminatory will point out that naturalized citizens take the same oath of allegiance as natural-born officeholders — and that singling them out by birth status creates a two-tiered conception of American citizenship that the country has historically rejected. What both sides can agree on is that the debate itself reflects how unsettled foundational questions about identity and belonging remain in American public life.

Sources:

[1] Web – Nancy Mace targets foreign-born Congress member

[2] Web – Krishnamoorthi Denounces Proposed Constitutional Amendment to …

[3] Web – Jayapal Statement on Hateful Mace Legislation to Ban Naturalized …