HJRES-194-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Nancy Mace (R-SC)
What it does
This joint resolution would propose a constitutional amendment barring any person who holds citizenship, nationality, or allegiance to a foreign country from serving as a Member of Congress, a federal judge (including Supreme Court justices), an Ambassador, a Senate-confirmed officer, or President or Vice President. The prohibition would not apply if the person formally and permanently relinquishes all foreign citizenship, nationality, and allegiance before taking office.
Who benefits
Americans who believe federal officeholders should hold exclusive loyalty to the United States. Candidates for federal office who hold only U.S. citizenship and would face no additional eligibility hurdles. Voters who prioritize single-nationality status as a qualification for high office.
Who is hurt
Naturalized U.S. citizens who retain citizenship in their country of origin and currently hold or seek federal office. Americans born abroad to foreign parents who automatically acquired dual nationality. U.S.-born citizens whose country of origin automatically confers citizenship by descent, even without the person's active choice. Immigrant communities whose members have pursued public service careers. Sitting federal officeholders who currently hold dual citizenship and would face a forced choice. Foreign-born federal judges and Senate-confirmed officials who would need to formally renounce foreign ties to remain in their positions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that individuals holding foreign citizenship or allegiance face an inherent conflict of interest when making decisions that affect U.S. national security, foreign policy, and the public interest. They contend that the Constitution already imposes loyalty-based eligibility requirements — such as the natural-born citizen requirement for the presidency — and that extending a formal renunciation requirement to all high federal offices is a logical and consistent extension of that principle. They further argue that the amendment would close a gap in existing law, since no current statute requires Members of Congress or federal judges to hold exclusive U.S. citizenship.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the amendment would impose a new, discriminatory barrier that disproportionately burdens naturalized citizens and Americans of immigrant heritage, many of whom cannot unilaterally shed foreign citizenship because some countries do not recognize renunciation. They contend that existing oath-of-office requirements already demand exclusive allegiance to the United States, making the amendment redundant in effect while harmful in practice. They further argue that the measure would shrink the pool of qualified public servants and could deter naturalized citizens — who make up roughly 7% of the U.S. adult population — from pursuing federal careers.