Did they pass a law that if you was not born in the US you could not hold a government office,

1. Viral claim and the reality: the "Born in America Act" story collapsed under scrutiny

Social posts asserted that a new law instantly stripped naturalized federal officials of office and forced resignations on live television, but mainstream fact‑checks found no evidence Congress passed such a statute or that federal marshals escorted naturalized members out of office; those details are inconsistent with how federal legislation and enforcement operate and would have produced unavoidable national headlines ^{[1] [2]}. Snopes explains the viral narrative contained fabricated quotes and constitutional errors, and Meaww noted the implausibility of the supposed enforcement actions and strange statistics cited by social posts ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the Constitution currently says: President versus other federal offices

The Constitution explicitly requires the president to be a "natural born Citizen," a unique textual limit on presidential eligibility that scholars and courts have debated but which remains the sole office with that explicit birthplace requirement (Article II; scholarly summaries and law resources) ^{[3] [5] [6]}. In contrast, the Constitution requires only seven years of U.S. citizenship for House members and nine years for senators, with no "natural born" restriction for Congress, and the Senate maintains records of many foreign‑born senators who met those citizenship‑period requirements ^{[4] [7]}.

3. Legal pathway (and obstacle) to imposing a nationwide birthplace ban

Because the "natural born" limitation is constitutional for the presidency and absent for other federal offices, Congress cannot unilaterally convert citizenship‑at‑birth into a universal qualification for all federal offices by ordinary statute; doing so for offices beyond the presidency would likely require a constitutional amendment and the assent of three‑quarters of state legislatures—an intentionally high bar noted by legal analysts and cited by fact‑checkers when debunking the viral claims ^{[1] [7]}. Historical and academic sources underscore that changes to eligibility rules of this magnitude implicate deep constitutional doctrines and long‑standing interpretive debates about birthright citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment ^{[8] [9] [10]}.

4. State efforts and local proposals that fuel confusion

While no federal law was passed, state legislatures have proposed or considered measures tightening eligibility at the state level—most recently reported proposals like an Alabama constitutional amendment to bar naturalized citizens from many state offices, which illustrate a real but separate phenomenon from the viral federal claim and have generated local controversy and legal pushback ^[11]. Such state proposals face their own constitutional limits and equal‑protection considerations under the Fourteenth Amendment if enacted, and they do not create a federal ban ^{[11] [7]}.

5. Motives, misinformation and what to watch next

The rapid spread of the Born‑in‑America narrative combined politically charged imagery (forced resignations, immediate removals) with constitutional misunderstanding to produce viral outrage—fact‑checkers point to political motives and the ease of amplifying false, sensational claims on social platforms, and scholars continue to debate the correct scope of "natural born" and birthright citizenship, so readers should distinguish constitutional text and precedent from online rumor and track reputable debunking ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Reporting tested here does not support the claim that a federal law was passed to bar anyone not born on U.S. soil from federal office; instead it shows a mix of constitutional reality (the presidency exception), state‑level proposals, and viral misinformation ^{[3] [4] [11] [1]}.