Rep. Ilhan Omar shrugged off a new GOP push to require members of Congress to be natural-born citizens, while Rep. Nancy Mace unveiled a proposed constitutional amendment to impose that standard, and Rep. Randy Fine has floated a separate ban on dual citizens serving in Congress. The plan faces steep constitutional hurdles and limited backing from House GOP leaders so far, and Omar says she is unconcerned about its chances.
When a reporter pressed her, Omar offered a short reply, “Good luck to her,” a dismissal that underscored how lightly she treated the proposal. The reaction was calm and pointed, and it sent a clear signal that those targeted by the measure aren’t trembling at the idea. That attitude will likely become a talking point for both sides as the debate heats up.
Nancy Mace rolled out a constitutional amendment aiming to extend the natural-born citizenship requirement beyond the White House to members of Congress, federal judges, and Senate-confirmed officers. She stated plainly, “If you hold power in the American government, you should be a natural-born American citizen,” arguing that loyalty and public trust matter at every level. Mace framed the change as correcting what she sees as a longstanding problem of foreign-born officials holding power.
Mace specifically named lawmakers she considers emblematic of the issue, and her post on X singled out three members by name: “Ilhan Omar. Shri Thanedar. Pramila Jayapal,” followed by a broader charge in the same message: “All born in foreign countries, none were citizens by birth. All sitting in the United States Congress. All making clear every single day their loyalty is not to America.” That language is meant to lay down a stark choice about allegiance and eligibility.
There are currently 26 members of Congress who were not natural-born citizens — 19 Democrats and seven Republicans — a fact Mace and allies have seized on to argue the problem is widespread and bipartisan in scope. But changing the Constitution is deliberately difficult, requiring two-thirds approval in both chambers and ratification by three-fourths of the states, so advocates know they face an uphill climb. That procedural reality gives opponents time to rally and makes it unlikely the amendment advances without a major shift in legislative will.
So far the proposal has not drawn strong public endorsement from House GOP leadership or a large roster of co-sponsors, leaving it more as a statement of principles than a short-term legislative threat. Republicans who share concerns about divided loyalties can use the idea to galvanize voters and frame the debate, but translating that into constitutional change is a different matter. The limited backing suggests many conservative lawmakers see it as politically useful rhetoric but politically impractical right now.
Omar was also asked about Rep. Randy Fine’s “Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act,” and she responded with a quick, “Who’s that?” Fine’s measure would bar dual citizens from serving in Congress unless they renounced foreign nationality, a tougher test aimed at eliminating any divided allegiance. Fine put the argument bluntly: “I think it’s a fair argument to say you can only swear allegiance to one country, and if you’re in Congress, that allegiance should be to America,” and he added, “This bill ensures that the people making laws for our citizens are themselves fully committed to our country, not divided between two.”
Despite the attention, Fine’s bill has not made headway since being sent to the House Judiciary Committee, and the constitutional amendment remains largely symbolic without broader GOP leadership support. Both measures feed a larger conversation about national loyalty, citizenship, and who should have the authority to make laws for Americans. For now, the proposals function as sharp messages aimed at voters and opponents rather than near-term changes to the rules that govern who may sit in Washington.
