Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina is trying to redraw one of the oldest lines in American public life: who is eligible to hold federal power. Her proposals would reach far beyond the presidency, potentially changing the qualifications for Congress, the federal judiciary, ambassadors, Cabinet officials, and other Senate-confirmed positions.
The Republican lawmaker has introduced two separate constitutional amendments. The first, H.J. Res. 188, would require members of the House, senators, federal judges, ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and other Senate-confirmed officers to be natural-born U.S. citizens. The second, H.J. Res. 194, would bar anyone who holds foreign citizenship, nationality, or allegiance from those positions, including the presidency and vice presidency, unless the person formally and permanently gives up those foreign ties.
Two Proposals, One Explosive Debate
Mace introduced H.J. Res. 188 on May 20, 2026. The resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it remains listed as introduced. Its language would extend the natural-born-citizen requirement, now applied to the president and vice president, to a much wider group of federal officials.
On June 3, Mace followed with H.J. Res. 194. That measure is narrower in one important way. It does not automatically exclude every naturalized citizen. Instead, it focuses on people who still hold citizenship, nationality, or allegiance to another country, allowing them to serve after permanently relinquishing those connections.
Mace framed the proposals as a national security issue. “One country, one allegiance, or you do not serve,” she said while announcing the June measure. Her office argued that people exercising federal authority should answer only to the United States and should not have what she described as divided loyalties.
The argument is politically potent because it turns citizenship status into a test of trust. Yet the two resolutions would produce different results. A naturalized citizen with no remaining foreign citizenship might survive the June proposal but would still be disqualified by the May proposal simply because that person was not a citizen at birth.
The Constitution Currently Leaves the Door Open
Under today’s Constitution, House members must be at least 25, have been U.S. citizens for seven years, and live in the state they represent when elected. Senators must be at least 30, have been citizens for nine years, and live in the state they represent. Neither office requires citizenship from birth.
The presidency is different. Article II requires the president to be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. A person constitutionally ineligible to become president also cannot serve as vice president.
That distinction was deliberate. The Constitution’s congressional qualifications left room for adopted citizens after a waiting period. The Constitution Annotated explains that the House requirements were designed to keep public service open to “merit of every description,” including people who became Americans later in life.
Naturalized citizens also already take an oath requiring them to renounce allegiance to foreign governments, support and defend the Constitution, and bear true faith and allegiance to the United States. That does not automatically resolve every question involving dual nationality, but it complicates the argument that naturalized citizenship itself signals divided loyalty.
Jayapal Calls the Effort Racist and Xenophobic
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat born in India who became a U.S. citizen in 2000, sharply rejected Mace’s first proposal. Jayapal called it racist, narrow-minded, and xenophobic, arguing that it dismisses the voters who elected naturalized Americans to Congress.
“This is also insulting to the hundreds of thousands of constituents who elected naturalized citizens into office,” Jayapal said. She described her naturalization ceremony as one of the most meaningful moments of her life and argued that immigrants have helped shape and strengthen the country.
Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who was born in Somalia and became a U.S. citizen in 2000, offered a shorter response when asked about Mace’s effort: “Good luck to her.” The remark captured the enormous political obstacle facing either proposal.
Changing the Constitution requires approval from two-thirds of both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the states, meaning 38 states. The president does not have a formal role in approving a constitutional amendment. GovInfo currently lists both Mace resolutions as introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, with no later legislative action shown.
That makes immediate passage unlikely, but the debate is bigger than the vote count. Mace is asking whether birthplace or continuing foreign ties should determine access to federal power. Her critics are asking whether naturalized Americans, after completing the legal process and swearing allegiance to the country, should be treated as permanently less eligible than citizens from birth.
The constitutional road ahead is steep. The political argument, however, has already arrived: Should every American citizen have an equal chance to serve, except where the Constitution already says otherwise, or should the nation impose stricter citizenship rules on nearly every top federal office?
