Bipartisan Call for Unwavering Allegiance: The Legislative Push to Ban Dual Citizens from U.S. Congress Ignites a National Debate on Loyalty

Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) is taking a bold and uncompromising stand, spearheading a movement to ensure that every individual serving in the U.S. Congress holds sole and exclusive allegiance to the United States.

Luna’s fiery declaration, “The ONLY people who should be allowed to serve in Congress are American citizens!”, has galvanized support from those who believe the integrity of American governance is jeopardized by the potential for divided loyalties. This push for “America First” in Washington is aimed at protecting the government’s sanctity and guaranteeing that every legislative decision is made without the complication of foreign national interests.

 

 

The Current Legal Landscape and Proposed Changes

The U.S. Constitution sets clear, yet limited, requirements for serving in Congress: a minimum age, a period of U.S. citizenship, and residency in the state one represents.1 It does not explicitly prohibit dual citizens from serving.

This is the loophole that Rep. Luna and her colleagues are seeking to close. While the initial information focuses on Luna’s strong rhetoric, the legislative efforts around this issue generally fall into two categories:

    Mandatory Disclosure: Legislation like the Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act (H.R. 7484, sponsored by Rep. Tim Burchett, R-TN) would require Members of Congress who are foreign nationals to file a statement with the appropriate ethics committee disclosing their status.2 Rep. Luna herself has introduced the Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act (H.R. 2356, 119th Congress), which would require candidates for federal office who are dual citizens to disclose that information in their statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).3
    Outright Ban: Other proposals, like the Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act of 2025 introduced by Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL), propose an explicit ban, stating that a person may not be elected to the office of Representative or Senator if they are a national of any country other than the United States.4 This legislation would also require current dual-citizen members seeking re-election to renounce their foreign citizenship.

These legislative moves underscore a growing demand, particularly within the conservative wing of the Republican party, to tighten the legal framework surrounding the qualifications for public office, prioritizing unambiguous, singular fealty to the U.S.

 

 

 

 

The Argument for Singular Allegiance

The core of Rep. Luna’s argument rests on the issue of loyalty and accountability. Proponents of the ban assert that a person holding dual citizenship, by its very definition, owes allegiance to two sovereign states.5 When members of Congress are tasked with making life-and-death decisions, drafting foreign policy, and handling sensitive intelligence, the risk of conflicting interests is deemed too great.

Protecting National Security: In matters of defense, intelligence, and international relations, a dual citizen could theoretically be subject to legal, financial, or political pressures from the foreign state of their second citizenship, potentially compromising U.S. interests.
Restoring Public Trust: Requiring singular citizenship is viewed as a necessary step to restore public faith in government integrity, ensuring the public that their representatives’ motives are entirely focused on American well-being.

 

 

The push from Rep. Luna and others is a bold political move aimed at forcing a floor debate on what they see as a crucial element of ethical governance: reserving public office only for those whose loyalty is fully and legally undivided.

This video shows Rep. Luna making an argument on the House floor about a funding bill, reflecting her confrontational style in Congressional debates. Anna Paulina Luna Issues Blunt Message To Democrats On GOP Funding Bill