WASHINGTON, D.C. — What began as a fiery statement on social media has ignited one of the most charged debates on Capitol Hill in recent memory. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) has launched a bold legislative and cultural offensive to prohibit individuals holding dual citizenship from serving in the U.S. Congress — a move that, if successful, could fundamentally alter the composition of America’s legislature.

In a statement that spread rapidly across political channels, Luna declared,

“The ONLY people who should be allowed to serve in Congress are American citizens!”

Her words struck a chord with populist and nationalist voters who have long demanded stricter loyalty standards for federal officeholders. But they also opened a Pandora’s box of constitutional questions, ethical implications, and partisan clashes over what it truly means to have “undivided allegiance” to the United States.

A Political Bomb in the Heart of Washington

According to Luna, this isn’t just about political symbolism — it’s about safeguarding national integrity. “If you hold a foreign citizenship, you can’t hold power here,” she said, adding that the issue is not merely one of transparency but of absolute, undivided loyalty.

Her comments came amid growing populist sentiment within the Republican Party, with some lawmakers warning that “foreign influence” could subtly shape legislative decisions, particularly on defense, intelligence, and foreign aid policy. Supporters of Luna’s proposal frame it as a “loyalty test” — one they say is long overdue in an era of global entanglements and heightened geopolitical tension.

The Legal Gap: What the Constitution Says — and Doesn’t

Under the current U.S. Constitution, the qualifications for serving in Congress are surprisingly sparse. Article I outlines basic requirements: minimum age (25 for the House, 30 for the Senate), years of U.S. citizenship (seven and nine, respectively), and residency in the state represented. There is no mention of dual citizenship.

This omission, Luna argues, has created a loophole — one that allows individuals with formal ties to foreign governments to occupy positions of significant national power. “That’s a vulnerability we can’t afford anymore,” Luna said during a recent floor address.

While no evidence suggests that dual citizens currently serving in Congress have acted against U.S. interests, Luna and her allies argue that the potential for divided loyalty is enough to justify a legal safeguard.

The Legislative Front: Bills on the Table

Luna’s initiative builds on several recent legislative efforts targeting dual citizenship disclosure and eligibility. Two main approaches have emerged from the Republican caucus:

Mandatory Disclosure.
The Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act (H.R. 7484), introduced by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), would compel any Member of Congress holding dual citizenship to file a formal disclosure with the House or Senate Ethics Committee. Similarly, Luna’s own Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act (H.R. 2356) would require candidates for federal office to publicly state their dual-citizen status when filing with the Federal Election Commission.

Outright Ban.
A more aggressive proposal, the Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL), goes further — seeking to make it illegal for dual citizens to hold or run for federal office. Under this plan, current members seeking re-election would be forced to renounce any foreign citizenship as a condition of candidacy.

These bills reflect a growing sentiment, particularly among conservatives, that “exclusive allegiance” should be codified into law — not just assumed as a matter of tradition or personal ethics.

The Argument for Singular Allegiance

Proponents of Luna’s push make a straightforward but potent case: a person cannot serve two masters.

They contend that holding dual citizenship inherently divides one’s loyalty between two nations — a conflict that becomes intolerable when the individual is responsible for shaping U.S. foreign policy, intelligence oversight, or national defense decisions.

“Imagine a senator holding citizenship in a country currently negotiating arms deals or trade disputes with the U.S.,” one Republican strategist argued. “Even if they act in good faith, the perception of conflict alone erodes trust.”

Supporters outline three main justifications:

Protecting National Security. Dual citizens could be exposed to pressure, coercion, or legal obligations from their second country of nationality. Requiring single citizenship would eliminate even the appearance of susceptibility.

Restoring Public Trust. In an age of widespread skepticism toward Washington, advocates say singular allegiance would reassure Americans that elected officials’ loyalties are unambiguous and undivided.

Strengthening Ethical Standards. The measure, they argue, aligns with the broader “America First” movement to prioritize national sovereignty over globalism.

The Pushback: Critics Warn of Overreach and Xenophobia

However, the proposal faces fierce opposition across the aisle — and even within Luna’s own party.

Critics argue that dual citizenship does not equate to divided loyalty, and that the ban risks alienating millions of naturalized Americans who maintain cultural or familial ties abroad. Some legal scholars also question whether such a restriction would withstand constitutional scrutiny.

“Loyalty is demonstrated through action, not paperwork,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a constitutional lawyer. “The Founders designed our qualifications with simplicity and inclusivity in mind. Adding loyalty tests undermines that spirit.”

Civil rights groups have also voiced alarm. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned that Luna’s proposal could set a precedent for excluding Americans based on origin or heritage, calling it “a thinly veiled form of discrimination dressed as patriotism.”

Political Stakes and Cultural Ripples

For Luna, who has built a reputation as a fierce populist voice, the debate has only elevated her national profile. Clips of her fiery House floor speeches — particularly one in which she rebuked Democrats for opposing a GOP funding bill — have circulated widely online, earning her praise from conservative influencers and media outlets.

Yet the controversy also underscores a deeper national question: What does it mean to be fully American in an interconnected world?

As Luna pushes for a formal vote on her proposed legislation, the conversation shows no signs of cooling. Whether viewed as a principled stand for national sovereignty or a dangerous flirtation with exclusionism, the “dual loyalty” debate has forced both parties to confront an uncomfortable truth:
In Washington, allegiance — like power — is never as simple as it seems.