Get started free →
HR 9063 119th Congress · House

Bill to Bar Non-Citizens from Most Federal Jobs

Advocate

Official title: To amend title 5, United States Code, to restrict the employment in the Federal Government of individuals who are not citizens or nationals, and for other purposes.

This bill would amend Title 5 of the U.S. Code to restrict federal employment for people who are not U.S. citizens or nationals. In practical terms, it would tighten who can be hired into federal civilian jobs and could affect applicants, current employees in covered positions, and agencies that rely on a diverse hiring pool. The measure is being handled by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which oversees federal workforce rules and personnel policy.

  • Amends Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which governs federal civilian employment rules.
  • Restricts federal employment to U.S. citizens and nationals.
  • Would affect hiring across federal agencies and departments.
  • Could require agencies to tighten eligibility screening in the hiring process.
Public Relevance 60 / 100
Niche Broad impact Broad

For the general public, the main effect would be on who can compete for federal civilian jobs. U.S. citizens and nationals would remain eligible, while non-citizens could lose access to many federal positions, which could reduce opportunities for some lawful residents and change how agencies recruit for specialized roles. The bill does not create a new benefit payment or tax amount; its effect is a change in eligibility rules for federal employment.

See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysis
FOR
  • Federal workforce reform advocates They may argue that federal jobs should be reserved for people with the strongest legal and civic ties to the United States. A citizenship requirement is seen as a straightforward way to reinforce loyalty, simplify eligibility checks, and reduce concerns about access to sensitive government work.
  • Immigration restriction advocates They may support the bill as part of a broader effort to prioritize citizens in public-sector employment. In their view, federal jobs funded by taxpayers should go first to citizens and nationals before being open to non-citizens.
  • Some security-focused policymakers They may contend that limiting federal employment to citizens and nationals reduces risk in sensitive roles and makes personnel vetting more uniform. They may also see it as a way to avoid complicated case-by-case determinations about immigration status.
AGAINST
  • Federal agencies and hiring managers They may worry that a narrower eligibility pool will make it harder to fill specialized positions, especially in technical, scientific, language, and hard-to-recruit occupations. Agencies could lose access to qualified candidates who are lawfully present and already eligible under current rules.
  • Non-citizen lawful residents seeking public-sector careers They may argue that people who live, work, and pay taxes in the United States should not be categorically excluded from federal service. They could see the bill as unfairly shutting out qualified applicants based solely on citizenship status.
  • Workforce and civil-service advocates They may say the bill could reduce competition and diversity in federal hiring, making it harder for the government to attract top talent. They may also argue that blanket restrictions can be blunt tools that do not account for the needs of different agencies or job categories.
  • “restrict the employment in the Federal Government of individuals who are not citizens or nationals”

    This language would make citizenship or nationality a gatekeeping requirement for federal civilian jobs. In practice, it could exclude lawful non-citizen residents from applying for or keeping covered positions.

  • “amend title 5, United States Code”

    Title 5 is the core legal framework for federal personnel rules. Changing it would ripple through hiring policies, eligibility standards, and agency human-resources procedures across the executive branch.

  • “for other purposes”

    This phrase signals that the bill may include related conforming changes or implementation details beyond the headline restriction. Those kinds of provisions often determine how broadly the rule is applied and how agencies must enforce it.

  • “Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform”

    The bill is in committee review in the House, where members can hold hearings, amend the proposal, or leave it without further action. Committee referral is the first major step before any floor consideration.

May 29, 2026

Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Take Action

Get more from BillBoard

Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.

Ask AI about this bill

Data sourced from api.congress.gov.

Free to use · No credit card

Understand every bill.
Make your voice count.

BillBoard turns dense U.S. legislation into plain-English summaries, helps you take a stance, and connects you to your representatives — in seconds.