Breaking: Rep. Jim Jordan Introduces Bill to Limit Presidency and Congress to U.S.-Born Citizens

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has ignited a firestorm in the nation’s capital with the introduction of the “Born American Act,” a bill that could fundamentally reshape the requirements for America’s highest offices. The proposal would restrict eligibility for the presidency, vice presidency, and seats in Congress to individuals born on U.S. soil to at least one American citizen parent—a dramatic tightening of existing standards that would exclude naturalized citizens from federal elected office.

Unveiled at a press conference on Capitol Hill, Jordan’s bill lays out a sweeping mandate: only those with “unshakable American roots” and lifelong exposure to the nation’s founding ideals would be eligible to lead. “Our leaders should have roots that run deep into the soil of this country,” Jordan declared. “They should understand—not just intellectually, but instinctively—what it means to live and breathe American freedom.”

Jordan insists the bill is not about exclusion, but about preserving the nation’s founding spirit and ensuring future leaders are grounded in its culture and constitutional traditions. However, the bill goes well beyond the current constitutional requirement that the president be a “natural-born citizen,” which historically has included those born abroad to American parents. If enacted, the Born American Act would bar naturalized citizens—even those with decades of service—from running for president, vice president, senator, or representative.

The response was immediate and intense. Civil rights groups, immigrant advocates, and constitutional scholars denounced the bill as discriminatory and anti-immigrant. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), himself the son of Mexican immigrants, called it “a betrayal of everything this nation stands for.”

“We are a country built by immigrants, defended by immigrants, and renewed by immigrants,” Padilla said. “To suggest that only those born here can lead here is not patriotism—it’s fear.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) labeled the bill “a dangerous and unconstitutional attempt to create two classes of citizenship,” arguing that it undermines democracy by equating birthplace with love of country.

Legal experts, meanwhile, highlighted significant constitutional obstacles. Professor Linda Chavez of Georgetown University explained that while Congress can regulate eligibility for congressional office, changing presidential qualifications would require a constitutional amendment—a process demanding ratification by three-fourths of the states. “This proposal, in its current form, has no path forward without a constitutional amendment,” Chavez said. “But the symbolism of it—that’s what will resonate politically.”

Some analysts see the Born American Act as more of a political statement than a realistic legislative effort. By introducing the bill during a heated election cycle, Jordan is staking a claim on one of the Republican Party’s core themes: protecting American identity.

Dr. Nathan Klein, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, described the bill as “performative nationalism.” “Jordan knows this bill won’t pass—at least not in this Congress,” Klein said. “But that’s not the point. The point is to force Democrats to take a position that can be portrayed as ‘anti-American’ or ‘soft on immigration.’”

Jordan’s rhetoric echoed these broader themes, linking national pride, border security, and citizenship into a single, emotionally charged message. “We’re losing sight of who we are,” he said. “This bill is a reminder that being an American is more than paperwork—it’s heritage, it’s sacrifice, it’s home.”

The controversy surrounding the Born American Act comes as the U.S. faces ongoing debates over identity and belonging. With over 45 million foreign-born residents—the highest in history—many naturalized citizens serve in the military, hold public office, and contribute to the nation’s economy.

For critics, the bill feels like a repudiation of America’s core promise: that anyone can rise through merit and hard work, regardless of birthplace. As one historian noted, “If Alexander Hamilton were alive today, he’d be disqualified under Jordan’s bill.” Immigrant advocacy groups warn the legislation could further polarize an already fractured electorate. “This is not just about who runs for office,” said Maria Gomez, director of the National Coalition for Immigrant Rights. “It’s about who counts as fully American.”

Despite its explosive debut, the Born American Act faces long odds in Congress. With Democrats controlling the Senate and President Biden likely to veto any such measure, the bill is unlikely to become law in its current form. Yet, its impact may be felt in the upcoming campaign cycle, as debates over loyalty, belonging, and identity take center stage.

“Legislation like this isn’t just about law,” said Klein. “It’s about storytelling. It’s about shaping how Americans see themselves—and who they think belongs in the story.”

Ultimately, the controversy around Jordan’s bill reflects a paradox at the heart of the American experiment: a nation founded by immigrants, still struggling to define who gets to claim its future. To supporters, the Born American Act is a safeguard of loyalty and heritage. To critics, it’s a betrayal of the ideals it claims to protect.

As the debate rages, one question remains—one as old as the republic itself:

Who gets to call themselves American?

And perhaps, that’s the conversation Jim Jordan always intended to spark.