A Pledge of One Flag: Inside the Fierce Battle to Bar Dual Citizens from Congress and Redefine American Loyalty
It’s one of the most explosive debates on Capitol Hill this year — and it has nothing to do with spending bills, border walls, or impeachment hearings.
At the heart of the storm is Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who has ignited a national conversation with a simple but polarizing demand:
“The ONLY people who should be allowed to serve in Congress are American citizens!”
In an era of blurred borders, global migration, and digital diplomacy, Luna’s call for exclusive U.S. allegiance among lawmakers has thrust questions of identity, patriotism, and constitutional limits into the political spotlight. What began as a rallying cry in conservative circles is now rippling across the aisle — forcing Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike to grapple with a fundamental question:
What does it mean to be loyal to America in 2025?
The Spark That Lit the Fire
Rep. Luna, a first-term lawmaker known for her sharp rhetoric and “America First” posture, has made political waves before. But her latest crusade — to prohibit dual citizens from holding congressional office — has struck a deeper chord.
Standing on the House floor earlier this month, Luna delivered an impassioned plea. “How can you swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States,” she asked, “if you’ve also sworn allegiance to another flag?”
The applause from her Republican colleagues was immediate. But the reaction across the political spectrum was anything but unanimous.
What the Law Says — and What Luna Wants to Change
Under current law, the U.S. Constitution sets minimal qualifications for serving in Congress:
-
Representatives must be at least 25 years old, U.S. citizens for seven years, and residents of the state they represent.
-
Senators must be at least 30 years old, U.S. citizens for nine years, and residents of their state.
Nowhere does it bar dual citizens.
Luna and her allies argue that this omission — a relic of the 18th century when dual citizenship was rare — is a loophole that no longer fits the realities of modern governance. They want Congress to go further, enshrining a requirement that lawmakers hold exclusive U.S. citizenship.
Their movement now spans multiple bills:
1. The Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act (H.R. 7484)
Introduced by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), this proposal would compel every member of Congress who holds a second citizenship to disclose that status to the relevant ethics committee. Transparency, its backers say, is the first step toward restoring trust.
2. The Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act (H.R. 2356)
Authored by Luna herself, this measure would require candidates for federal office to reveal dual citizenship when filing campaign paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The public, she argues, has a right to know whether a future legislator shares legal obligations with another nation.
3. The Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act of 2025
The most controversial of the three, sponsored by Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL), goes all in. It would ban dual citizens outright from serving in Congress, disqualifying current lawmakers who refuse to renounce foreign citizenship before seeking re-election.
Together, these bills mark a coordinated legislative push to redefine what it means to be eligible for federal office — not through party loyalty, but through national exclusivity.
The Case for Singular Allegiance
Supporters of Luna’s initiative frame the issue as a matter of national integrity. In their view, divided citizenship creates divided loyalty.
“You can’t serve two masters,” Luna said during a Fox News interview. “When Americans send someone to Washington, they deserve to know that their representative’s first — and only — allegiance is to this country.”
Proponents make three key arguments:
-
National Security Risks
Lawmakers with dual nationality could, in theory, be pressured by their second country’s government — particularly when dealing with sensitive defense, intelligence, or trade issues.
“It’s not about discrimination,” said one GOP aide familiar with the bills. “It’s about safeguarding decision-making from foreign influence.” -
Ethical Clarity and Public Trust
Advocates argue that public confidence in Congress — already near historic lows — depends on removing any perception of conflicting interests. “If you’re writing laws for Americans,” Luna said, “Americans deserve to know that’s where your loyalty lies.” -
Symbolic Unity
For backers of the ban, the measure is as much moral as legal. It signals a recommitment to the idea of undivided citizenship — a throwback to the Cold War era, when allegiance was viewed in stark, singular terms.
The Critics Fire Back
Opponents — including many constitutional scholars and moderate lawmakers — see Luna’s proposal as unnecessary, unconstitutional, and potentially un-American.
“We are a nation of immigrants,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). “Dual citizenship is not a betrayal of American values — it’s often a reflection of them.”
Critics warn that the bills could disenfranchise millions of naturalized citizens who legally maintain ties to their birth countries, penalizing loyalty to heritage rather than allegiance in practice.
Legal scholars also raise serious constitutional flags. The framers, they argue, were deliberate in setting simple, inclusive eligibility requirements — leaving citizenship nuances to voters, not Congress.
“You’d need a constitutional amendment to make this stick,” said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. “Otherwise, it’s political theater disguised as reform.”
Beyond legality, opponents fear the proposal could stoke xenophobia and deepen divides at a time when the country is already fractured over questions of identity and belonging.
“Who’s next?” asked one commentator. “If we start disqualifying people with dual passports, do we ban those with foreign spouses? Dual-citizen donors? Where does it end?”
A Rare Bipartisan Undercurrent
While Luna’s rhetoric resonates most with the right, her core idea has found unlikely allies in both parties — particularly among populists wary of global entanglements.
Some progressive Democrats have expressed cautious support for disclosure requirements, arguing that transparency on foreign citizenship should extend to financial and lobbying interests as well. “If we demand candidates reveal stock holdings,” one Democrat noted, “why not their citizenships?”
This emerging bipartisan overlap underscores a broader public unease with global influence in Washington — whether it comes from Beijing, Riyadh, or Silicon Valley.
Still, the unity is fragile. Democrats largely support transparency but draw the line at disqualification, calling it a violation of equal protection principles.
The Historical Echo
The U.S. has wrestled with loyalty questions before. During both World Wars, naturalized citizens faced suspicion and loyalty tests. During the McCarthy era, “un-American” became a weaponized label.
What makes Luna’s push distinct is its timing: in a post-globalization, post-pandemic world where nationalism is resurgent, and where voters across ideological lines are questioning what “American identity” really means.
To some, it’s a necessary corrective — a reaffirmation of belonging in an age of blurred borders.
To others, it’s a regression — a loyalty oath disguised as patriotism.
Inside Luna’s Strategy: From Symbol to Substance
For Luna, the proposal is as much about forcing a moral reckoning as it is about passing a law. “If Democrats vote against this,” she said, “they’re admitting they’re fine with lawmakers who could answer to another country.”
Her team sees the legislation as a wedge issue — one that paints opponents as globalists indifferent to American sovereignty. And in an election season where populism still drives headlines, the optics may matter more than the outcome.
Still, insiders say Luna genuinely believes in the cause. “This isn’t a stunt,” said a staffer close to her office. “She sees it as a constitutional crusade — a way to restore honor in government.”
Public Opinion: Split but Swaying
Polling on dual citizenship and government service is sparse, but early data suggests that a slim majority of Americans favor disclosure — though fewer support an outright ban.
A 2024 Pew survey found that 56% of respondents agreed that “lawmakers should be required to disclose any foreign citizenships.” However, only 38% supported prohibiting dual citizens from serving in Congress.
Support was highest among conservatives and lowest among independents, indicating a partisan tilt but also a broader appetite for transparency.
Conclusion: The Loyalty Debate of a New Era
As Rep. Luna’s proposal gains attention, it’s clear that the issue transcends party politics. It touches something older — the American instinct to define who belongs and what allegiance means.
In a globalized world where millions hold dual passports, where lawmakers have family, business, or cultural ties abroad, the line between national and international identity has blurred. Luna’s push draws that line in bold ink — perhaps too bold for some, but impossible to ignore.
Whether her bill passes or stalls, it’s already reshaping the conversation about patriotism in a pluralistic democracy.
One flag. One oath. One Congress.
That’s the ideal Rep. Luna wants etched into law — and into the American conscience.
But in a nation built by immigrants, where diversity and duality are part of its DNA, the question remains:
Can America demand singular allegiance without losing part of what makes it unique?
