Congress proposes barring naturalized citizens from federal office
H.J.Res. 188 — Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that certain individuals are natural born citizens. · Filed by Nancy Mace (R-SC) · Introduced May 20, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This proposed constitutional amendment would require that all U.S. Representatives, Senators, federal judges, and certain senior executive officials (ambassadors, cabinet members, and other Senate-confirmed positions) be natural-born citizens. Currently, the Constitution requires only the President to be a natural-born citizen; Representatives and Senators need only be U.S. citizens. The amendment would tighten citizenship requirements across the federal government and would take effect at staggered dates after ratification.
Why we flagged it
This is a straightforward constitutional amendment proposal that plainly states its mechanism: restricting federal office-holding to natural-born citizens. It is not a tax provision, appropriation, or regulatory carve-out; it is a direct proposal to amend the Constitution's eligibility requirements.
What the text implies
- The staggered effective dates (immediate for Representatives, end-of-term for Senators, six months for judges and ambassadors) create a complex transition period where sitting naturalized-citizen officeholders may be grandfathered in or forced to resign depending on their office and term length.
- The amendment does not define 'natural born citizen,' leaving interpretation to courts and potentially creating litigation over the status of persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, adopted citizens, and other edge cases.
The full analysis lists 3 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The amendment restricts eligibility for high federal office to natural-born citizens, which some may view as protecting national security or cultural continuity, while others see it as narrowing democratic representation and excluding qualified naturalized citizens from public service. The civic impact depends on whether one values the restriction as a safeguard or views it as discriminatory against a class of citizens who are otherwise fully qualified and loyal.