HR-9063-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Nancy Mace (R-SC)
What it does
This bill would generally prohibit federal agencies from employing individuals who are not U.S. citizens or nationals, overriding an existing anti-discrimination provision in immigration law that currently allows hiring of certain non-citizens. It requires job applicants to sign affidavits attesting to citizenship status and agencies to verify this before appointment, with narrow exceptions for temporary translators, emergency field workers, international broadcasters at the U.S. Agency for Global Media, and temporary nonresident wildland firefighters. It also requires OPM to issue implementation guidance, report exceptions granted in the Federal Register, and report to Congress on current noncitizen employees.
Who benefits
U.S. citizens and nationals seeking federal employment, who would face reduced competition for certain positions; supporters of restricting federal hiring to citizens on national-security or labor-market grounds; agencies like USAGM that retain exceptions for specialized roles requiring non-citizen expertise (e.g., foreign-language broadcasters).
Who is hurt
Current lawful permanent residents and other non-citizen nationals currently employed by federal agencies (including the U.S. Postal Service and Postal Regulatory Commission) who could lose their jobs or be barred from advancement; agencies that rely on non-citizen linguists, scientists, or specialists outside the narrow listed exceptions; individuals who might face criminal fines up to $50,000 and up to 5 years imprisonment for false affidavits.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal employment involves access to sensitive government operations and taxpayer-funded positions that should be reserved for citizens and nationals, consistent with the principle that government jobs are a public trust tied to national allegiance. They contend the bill's exceptions for translators, emergency responders, international broadcasters, and wildland firefighters preserve operational flexibility while closing a broader gap that currently allows non-citizens into federal roles under existing anti-discrimination law.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that many lawful permanent residents and other non-citizens legally authorized to work in the U.S. currently serve competently in federal jobs, and this bill would displace them without evidence they pose any security or performance risk. They contend the affidavit and verification requirements create new bureaucratic burdens and criminal liability, while overriding existing federal anti-discrimination protections in the Immigration and Nationality Act that were designed to prevent citizenship-based employment discrimination.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to structure federal employment and set qualifications for federal positions, and courts have generally given Congress wide latitude over the terms of government service, which is not a constitutionally protected entitlement. There is no landmark Supreme Court case squarely governing citizenship-based restrictions on federal (as opposed to state or local) employment, though equal protection challenges to noncitizen employment restrictions in other contexts have sometimes proceeded under rational basis review given the federal government's broad power over immigration and national employment policy.
Checks and balances
Congress would set the citizenship requirement by statute; the executive branch (OPM and individual agencies) would implement verification and exceptions, with reporting obligations to Congress providing oversight of how exceptions are used.
Historical precedent
Existing law (8 U.S.C. 1324b) already permits federal agencies discretion to prefer citizens in some contexts, but this bill would go further by imposing a near-total statutory ban with only narrow exceptions, a more sweeping approach than current practice.