By Staff
When Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) strode to the House floor and uttered twelve explosive words “If you hold foreign citizenship, you don’t belong in American power” Washington collectively froze. What looked like a simple constitutional housekeeping measure has detonated into a full-blown political insurrection within the Capitol itself.
Luna’s proposed legislation, widely dubbed the One Passport Act, would prohibit any dual citizen from serving in Congress no exceptions, no grandfather clauses, no backdoor waivers.
In her own words:
“You cannot serve two masters. We must end divided allegiance in the halls of American government.”
The emotional resonance of the speech tapped into deep public frustration with perceived foreign entanglements in domestic decision-making, from trade policy to defense spending to technology contracts with foreign entities. For years, whispers in Washington have circulated about lawmakers whose secondary citizenship’s mostly with close U.S. allies coincidentally align with their voting patterns on foreign aid and national security issues.
This time, Luna said out loud what many within the intelligence and defense communities have only dared say privately.
Within hours of Luna’s announcement, DC went into lock down mode bureaucratically, at least.
Legal offices for several prominent senators reportedly convened emergency consultations with immigration attorneys.
Legislative aides, uncertain of their own status, scrambled to review citizenship’s by parentage, naturalization, or marriage.
Rumor mills churned out unverified lists of Members of Congress possessing second passports from nations including Israel, Canada, the U.K., and several EU states.
Lobbyists and foreign diplomats were observed calling key committees behind closed doors an unusual level of sudden activity even by Washington standards.
According to one former intelligence officer familiar with congressional liaison work, “There are people sweating bullets right now. This proposal threatens not just careers, but entire influence networks.”
Under current U.S. law, dual citizenship is not explicitly prohibited for members of Congress. The Constitution sets only age, residency, and citizenship requirements but not exclusive citizenship. Most lawmakers assume their oath to the United States supersedes any secondary affiliation.
Luna’s move reframes the issue from a matter of loyalty oath to existential allegiance. Her push draws on a fear that’s simmered for decades that globalism and corporate-state fusion have blurred the meaning of patriotism.
In recent years: Several defense and technology contracts have involved firms with executive boards tied to dual nationals.
Foreign lobbying disclosures have exploded, with registered agents for multiple governments operating openly in DC.
The boundaries between ally and client state have dissolved under financial interdependence.
Her bill argues that Congress must represent exclusively American interests, unmediated by global citizenship entanglements what some are calling a sovereignty test.
Supporters frame the initiative as an act of courage a firewall amid creeping global influence.
Former military officials have praised the proposal, noting that U.S. intelligence standards already restrict dual citizens from classified-access posts.
Grassroots activists see it as part of a broader “national renewal” movement: reclaiming political offices for Americans with undivided loyalty.
Critics, meanwhile, call the move dangerous a purge-by-passport that risks alienating naturalized citizens and allies.
They argue the law could disqualify decorated immigrants who serve the U.S. honorably in other capacities.
Others fear it may ignite retaliatory restrictions abroad for Americans with dual citizenship.
The ACLU is reportedly preparing an advisory memo questioning whether the bill violates equal protection principles.
Multiple insiders have hinted that Luna’s bill may expose longstanding networks of influence tied to foreign funding pipelines. For decades, foreign governments, sovereign wealth funds, and multinational corporate arms have indirectly financed U.S. electoral campaigns through complex PAC affiliations and consulting arrangements.
If this bill unfolds into background vetting, there could be:
Resignations or investigations of sitting members.
Disclosure battles over sealed FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) filings.
Constitutional showdowns between Congress’s administrative branch and the courts.
As one Hill staffer put it bluntly: “It’s not about nationality. It’s about who truly owns the lawmakers.”
What Luna’s move lays bare is the fault line between sovereignty and globalism. The same question driving voter discontent, trade protection debates, and border security arguments is now hitting Congress itself, what does America First really mean when lawmakers share multiple national loyalties?
Whether this measure survives committee or not, the political grenade has already exploded. The public now knows there is a list and that knowledge alone could reorder alliances in both major parties.
Capitol insiders are calling it the quiet loyalty test. Others call it “the Great Cleansing.”
Either way, the battle over allegiance has begun and Washington may never look the same again.
No comments:
Post a Comment