Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., plans to introduce a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that would require members of Congress, federal judges, and all Senate-confirmed appointees to be natural-born U.S. citizens, a sweeping change that would disqualify more than a dozen sitting lawmakers and reshape who can hold power in the federal government.
The proposal, which Mace intends to file Wednesday, extends the natural-born-citizen requirement that already applies to the presidency and vice presidency under the Constitution. If ratified, it would bar naturalized citizens from serving in either chamber of Congress, on the federal bench, or in any Cabinet-level or Senate-confirmed position.
Mace made clear the measure is aimed squarely at lawmakers she believes have demonstrated divided loyalties. As Fox News Digital reported, the South Carolina Republican singled out Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., by name.
"Ilhan Omar is just one of many foreign-born members of this government who have made clear, time and again, their loyalty is not here."
Omar was born in Somalia and became a naturalized citizen in 2000. Vice President JD Vance said Tuesday that Omar is under investigation by the Department of Justice for possible immigration fraud. Some Republicans have called for Omar's deportation over the alleged offense.
The amendment would not limit itself to Democrats. Fox News Digital identified 19 foreign-born members currently serving in Congress, though some of those members may qualify as natural-born citizens by virtue of having at least one U.S.-citizen parent.
Among the Republicans who could lose their seats under Mace's proposal: Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, born in Colombia and naturalized at 18; Rep. Juan Ciscomani, R-Ariz., who immigrated from Mexico; Rep. Young Kim, R-Calif., who came from South Korea; and Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., who immigrated from Ukraine. Moreno is described as an ally of President Donald Trump.
On the Democratic side, the affected members include Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Ted Lieu of California, Robert Garcia of California, and Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, in addition to Omar.
The reach extends beyond Congress. Former Trump Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would have been ineligible for her Cabinet post under the proposed rule. So would Alejandro Mayorkas, former President Joe Biden's Department of Homeland Security secretary. That breadth means the amendment would reshape not just the legislative branch but the entire upper tier of the executive and judicial branches.
Mace, who is also running to be South Carolina's next governor, cast the proposal as a matter of closing a constitutional gap. She told Fox News Digital:
"If you hold power in the American government, you should be a natural-born American citizen."
She added:
"For too long we have allowed foreign-born members to hold seats in this government, while making clear their loyalty is not here. We see it every day."
And in a final statement framing the measure's purpose:
"The American people deserve leaders who put America first. This amendment closes a gap in our Constitution long overdue for closing."
The language is direct. But turning that language into law requires clearing one of the highest bars in American government.
A constitutional amendment demands a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate before it can be sent to the states for ratification. Three-fourths of state legislatures must then approve it. Amendments can also be proposed through a constitutional convention requested by two-thirds of state legislatures, though that method has never been used successfully.
With nearly 25 million naturalized citizens in the country, the political headwinds are obvious. And the fact that the proposal would sideline several Republican members, including a Trump ally in the Senate, makes the coalition math even harder. This is not a bill that can pass on party-line votes. It would require a supermajority consensus that does not currently exist in either chamber.
That does not make the proposal meaningless. Constitutional amendments often begin as statements of principle long before they become viable legislation. Mace is staking out a position, and doing so on terrain that touches a raw nerve in the current political debate over immigration, assimilation, and national loyalty.
The timing is no accident. Mace's announcement comes one day after Vice President Vance disclosed that the Department of Justice is investigating Omar for possible immigration fraud. The details of that investigation, its basis, scope, and status, remain unclear. Omar's response, if any, was not included in Fox News Digital's reporting.
But the broader political context is hard to miss. Omar has been a lightning rod since her first term in Congress, drawing criticism from Republicans who argue her public statements reflect priorities at odds with American interests. Mace's proposal channels that frustration into a structural remedy, one that would make the question of loyalty moot by barring foreign-born officials from holding power in the first place.
The recent DOJ activity involving political figures adds another layer of urgency to the debate over who should be entrusted with federal authority.
Whether that remedy is wise policy or constitutional overreach depends on where you stand. But the proposal forces a conversation that Washington has avoided for decades.
The most striking feature of Mace's proposal is how many Republicans it would hit. Spartz, a Ukrainian-born conservative who has been outspoken on foreign policy, would be barred. Ciscomani, who flipped a competitive Arizona district, would be out. Kim, who represents a swing seat in Southern California, would lose her eligibility. Moreno, who won his Ohio Senate race with Trump's backing, would be forced from office.
That list makes it difficult to dismiss the proposal as a partisan weapon aimed solely at the Squad. Mace is either willing to accept significant collateral damage within her own party, or she is betting that the principle matters more than the political cost.
The recent turbulence among House Republicans suggests the caucus may not share that appetite for self-inflicted losses.
Elaine Chao's inclusion on the hypothetical disqualification list adds yet another complication. Chao served in two Republican administrations and is married to one of the most powerful figures in Senate Republican history. Any amendment that would have retroactively barred her from service is going to face resistance from the GOP establishment, not just from Democrats.
The Founders drew a clear line for the presidency. Only natural-born citizens may hold the nation's highest office. They did not extend that requirement to Congress, the judiciary, or the Cabinet. Whether that was an oversight, a compromise, or a deliberate choice is a question constitutional scholars have debated for more than two centuries.
Mace's argument is straightforward: if the requirement makes sense for the president, it should apply to every position of real power in the federal government. The counterargument is equally direct, that naturalized citizens who took an oath of allegiance, built lives in this country, and won the trust of voters deserve the same opportunity to serve as anyone born on American soil.
The intense competition in recent House primaries shows that voters already have the power to choose, or reject, any candidate they wish. Adding a constitutional barrier on top of the ballot box is a different proposition entirely.
There is also a practical question Mace's proposal does not answer. Among the 19 foreign-born members of Congress, some were born abroad to at least one U.S.-citizen parent. Those members may already qualify as natural-born citizens under existing law. The resolution's text has not been released, and it remains unclear how it would draw that line.
The joint resolution faces long odds. No constitutional amendment has been ratified since the 27th Amendment in 1992, and that one was originally proposed in 1789. The supermajority requirements are designed to ensure that only changes with overwhelming national consensus make it into the Constitution.
Mace knows this. Her proposal is as much a political statement as a legislative one, a marker for a gubernatorial campaign in South Carolina and a challenge to colleagues she believes have failed to put American interests first.
The recent wave of election-season political moves suggests this kind of high-profile positioning will only accelerate as 2026 races heat up.
Whether the amendment ever reaches a floor vote, it has already accomplished one thing: it has forced a public reckoning with the question of who should be allowed to wield federal power in a nation built by immigrants but governed, at its highest level, by citizens born to it.
The Founders trusted voters to pick their representatives. Mace is asking whether the Constitution should override that trust. It's a serious question, and it deserves a serious answer, not a reflexive one.
