In a move that’s ignited a firestorm of debate, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has introduced the “Born in the USA Act” on October 25, 2025, proposing a constitutional amendment to restrict eligibility for Congress and the presidency to natural-born U.S. citizens only. The bill, co-sponsored by 12 Republican colleagues, would amend Article II of the Constitution, effectively barring naturalized citizens from holding these offices. Jordan frames it as a safeguard for national sovereignty, but critics decry it as a thinly veiled exclusionary tactic aimed at consolidating power. As the proposal gains traction in a polarized Congress, it’s forcing America to confront core questions: What does it mean to be “American,” and who gets to lead?
Jordan’s bill arrives amid heightened immigration tensions, with Trump’s second term promising mass deportations and stricter border controls. “We need leaders who bleed red, white, and blue from birth,” Jordan thundered in a Fox News interview. “Natural-born citizens understand our soil, our struggles, our soul. This isn’t about shutting doors—it’s about locking the castle gate.” Supporters, including Trump allies like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, hail it as a patriotic bulwark against “foreign influences.” They cite historical precedents, like the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, arguing that naturalized leaders—such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, who eyed the presidency—could harbor divided loyalties. Polls from Rasmussen Reports show 58% of Republicans back the idea, viewing it as a defense against “globalist agendas.”
Yet, critics see a darker design. “This is exclusion by design—a power grab dressed as patriotism,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), whose parents immigrated from India. Naturalized citizens like Rep. Ilhan Omar (Somalia) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (Japan) would be ousted, disenfranchising 9% of Congress. Democratic leaders, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, slammed it as “anti-American,” noting it contradicts the Founders’ vision—Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were immigrants. The ACLU warned it could violate equal protection, potentially facing Supreme Court scrutiny. “It’s not about birth—it’s about birthright privilege,” tweeted activist Linda Sarsour.
The bill’s odds are slim—requiring two-thirds congressional approval and 38-state ratification—but its timing is strategic. With midterms looming, Jordan leverages Trump’s base, echoing his “America First” ethos. Supporters like Sen. Ted Cruz argue it prevents “Kamala Harris 2.0,” referencing the vice president’s Indian-Jamaican roots (despite her U.S. birth). Critics counter it’s xenophobic, ignoring immigrants’ contributions—14% of Congress is foreign-born, including trailblazers like Ted Cruz (Canada).
Jordan’s push amplifies a broader cultural war: Who defines “us”? In an era of rising nativism, the bill risks deepening divides, alienating the 14% of Americans who are naturalized citizens. As debate rages, one truth endures: Democracy’s strength lies in its inclusivity, not its gates. Will Jordan’s “patriotism” fortify the nation, or fortify the few? The ballot box will decide.
