WASHINGTON, D.C. — June 5, 2026 The U.S. Senate passed sweeping legislation in the closing minutes before midnight Thursday that would impose strict new citizenship requirements on federal officeholders nationwide. The Born In America Act, sponsored by Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-LA), cleared the chamber on a 51-49 vote. Vice President J.D. Vance cast the tie-breaking vote to secure passage. The measure requires that every person serving in federal office — including members of Congress, Cabinet secretaries, and federal judges — must be a natural-born U.S. citizen with no history of dual citizenship. The standard, long reserved exclusively for the presidency under Article II of the Constitution, would now extend across much of the federal government. The Final Debate Debate on the Senate floor grew increasingly tense in the final hour. Senator Kennedy, who had championed the legislation, rose to deliver closing remarks that stripped away his characteristic humor and focused on a single constitutional principle. Senator Kennedy declared: “The Constitution says natural-born for President. I just made it the law for everybody. If you weren't born on this soil, you don't run this soil. Period.” Supporters of the bill contend that individuals who once held citizenship in another country cannot be entrusted with the nation’s most sensitive responsibilities. They argue the law closes a significant gap in safeguarding national loyalty at the highest levels of power. Immediate Implementation Within minutes of the final gavel, Capitol Police officers entered the House chamber and committee rooms. Reports indicate that 14 House members, three senators, and two Cabinet secretaries who are naturalized citizens were escorted from the building. Enforcement actions have reportedly extended beyond the Capitol. Federal marshals have been dispatched to begin compliance proceedings involving federal judges and other officials who do not meet the new criteria. Affected officeholders were given a 72-hour window to resign their positions. Political and Public Reaction President Donald Trump welcomed the outcome. In a post on Truth Social immediately after the vote, he wrote: “Biggest win ever. America First just became America ONLY.” Advocates of the legislation view it as a long-overdue restoration of government to those born on American soil. They maintain that undivided allegiance from birth is a reasonable and necessary qualification for those who wield legislative, executive, and judicial authority. Opponents, including Democratic leaders and civil liberties groups, condemned both the substance of the law and the speed of its enforcement. They described the measure as discriminatory toward naturalized citizens who have taken the oath of allegiance and built lives in the United States. Legal experts have already begun raising questions about potential constitutional challenges, particularly regarding retroactive application to sitting officeholders and the separation of powers between branches of government. Online and Media Response A short clip of Senator Kennedy’s floor statement spread rapidly across social media platforms. The video quickly accumulated tens of millions of views and dominated online discourse under the hashtag #BornInAmericaAct. The development has intensified an already polarized national conversation about citizenship, identity, and eligibility for public service. While the immediate practical effects are still unfolding, the legislation has guaranteed that questions surrounding loyalty, representation, and constitutional limits will remain at the center of American political debate in the weeks and months ahead.

Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary

California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.

The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.

According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.

That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.

The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.

State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.

California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.

Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.

Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.

“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.

Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.

Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.

Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.

Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.

Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.

The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.

In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.

Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.

State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.

Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.

The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.

Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.

California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.

Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.

Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.

A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.

State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.