Article by Inês Costa Moura on behalf of the IAS Team

In recent days, several headlines have suggested that Portugal has “tightened its citizenship rules.”While not incorrect, this framing is incomplete — and, in some cases, misleading.

The proposal approved by Parliament last week is not a standalone reform. It is the latest step in an ongoing legislative process that has already gone through parliamentary approval, constitutional scrutiny, and presidential intervention — and is still not yet in force. Much of the current public narrative reflects political positioning rather than final legal outcomes. Understanding what has actually changed — and what has not — requires stepping back.

1. The context: from October to today

The current proposal must be read against the developments of the past months.

On 28 October 2025, Parliament approved a first version of the reform of the Nationality Law. At the time, the proposal already aimed at tightening access to citizenship, particularly by extending timelines and reinforcing integration criteria.

Shortly after, on 14 November 2025, the Socialist Party requested a preventive review by the Constitutional Court, effectively suspending the entry into force of the law.

On 16 December 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled that several provisions were unconstitutional, particularly on the basis of:

• violation of legal certainty,
• lack of proportionality, and
• failure to protect the legitimate expectations of applicants already in process.

The law was therefore returned to Parliament.

On 1 April 2026, Parliament approved a revised version of the reform, following an agreement between PSD and Chega — notably without a final consensus with the Socialist Party.

At the same time, Portugal now has a new President, António José Seguro, who took office in March 2026 and who, during his campaign, publicly defended that nationality law should be built on broad consensus and without ideological bias.

This context is critical: the current proposal is not a new direction, but rather a continuation of a previously contested legislative approach, meaning that many of the same legal vulnerabilities may still apply.

2. What actually is proposed — including for Golden Visa investors

The newly approved proposal confirms a shift towards a more restrictive and demanding framework. From a Golden Visa perspective, the most relevant elements are:

• General tightening of the legal regime, both in terms of access to Portuguese citizenship and the broader framework governing nationality (including potential withdrawal scenarios);
• Extension of the minimum residence period, increasing from 5 to 10 years of legal residence for eligibility for nationality;
• Change in how the residence period is counted, with time now being calculated from the moment legal residence is formally granted;
• Reinforcement of the “effective connection” requirement, suggesting a more demanding qualitative assessment of integration into Portuguese society, beyond the mere fulfilment of formal residence criteria.

Importantly, these are proposed changes, and their final scope — including transitional rules — remains uncertain.

One of the key unresolved issues is precisely the treatment of pending applications and existing investors. The previous version of the law was challenged on this basis, and any new version that fails to adequately protect legitimate expectations may face similar scrutiny.

From a structural perspective for now it is certain that:

• residence rights under the Golden Visa remain unaffected, and
• the requirements for obtaining permanent residence are unchanged, becoming increasingly relevant as an intermediate milestone in a potentially longer citizenship timeline.

3. The political framing: more than just a legal reform

The parliamentary debate surrounding the proposal reflects a deeper political divide. On the Government side, the reform was framed as a necessary correction of past policies. Minister António Leitão Amaro referred to the need to address “historical errors” and “facilitism”, emphasizing:

• the importance of language,
• shared values, and
• alignment with European standards and Constitutional Court guidance.

The leader of the Chega party reinforced the need for a “ligação efetiva” (effective connection) to Portugal and highlighted stricter positions regarding refusal or loss of nationality in cases involving serious crimes.

On the other side, Pedro Delgado Alves (PS) strongly criticized the proposal, arguing that:

• parts of the Constitutional Court’s reasoning are still being ignored;
• the reform introduces legal uncertainty; and
• it risks penalizing foreign residents who are already integrated and contributing to the country.

He also warned of longer timelines and increased barriers for applicants who would previously have qualified.

Hugo Soares (PSD) defended the proposal as “balanced and responsible”, stating that the revised version addresses the Constitutional Court’s concerns — while also acknowledging that a new constitutional challenge remains possible.

A reform of this nature would typically benefit from broad consensus, given its long-term structural impact. In this case, however, the proposal has exposed significant political and ideological divisions.

4. A legal perspective: where the proposal may still face challenges

Beyond political positioning, the proposal raises a central legal question:

How to reconcile the State’s discretion in defining nationality policy with constitutional principles such as:

• legal certainty,
• proportionality, and
• protection of legitimate expectations.

This tension was at the core of the Constitutional Court’s previous decision — and remains relevant today. In particular, any attempt to significantly alter timelines or conditions for individuals already within the system may again be challenged on constitutional grounds.

5. A broader perspective: alignment with Europe

The reform is presented as aligning Portugal with European standards. However, in practice, several EU jurisdictions continue to maintain:

• shorter naturalization timelines, or
• more flexible frameworks, particularly for investors and long-term residents.

This raises the question of whether the proposed changes reflect true alignment — or rather a strategic repositioning of Portugal’s nationality policy. In that context, it is also worth noting that there has been no consistent or demonstrable systemic pressure, at a European level, requiring such a shift, nor a clear indication that the existing framework was failing in a way that would justify a structural overhaul of this nature

6. The President’s role — and what comes next

At this stage, the proposal is not yet law. It now awaits review by the President of the Republic, who may:

• ratify it;
• return it to Parliament; or
• refer it to the Constitutional Court.

From IAS’s perspective, and considering:

• the previous Constitutional Court decision,
• the lack of broad political consensus, and
• the President’s own public positioning,

it is likely that the proposal will be approached with caution.

As the President recently stated, following the parliamentary approval, the issue in Portugal is not the Constitution itself, but the failure to comply with it — a position that may weigh significantly in his assessment of this reform. He has also consistently defended the need for consensus-driven solutions in nationality matters.

In this context, a veto or a new constitutional review should not be excluded. The coming weeks will therefore be critical in determining whether this proposal evolves into law, is reshaped, or is halted altogether.

7. Conclusion: An Ongoing Process — and an Open Outcome

The proposal approved by Parliament reflects a clear political intention to tighten access to citizenship.

However, it is equally important to recognize that:

• the law has not entered into force;
• it has already been subject to constitutional rejection once; and
• it now faces a new institutional review by the President.

The current situation should therefore not be interpreted in absolute terms. This is neither:

• a confirmed and final change;

nor

• a purely theoretical discussion.

It is a live legislative process, still subject to constitutional and political checks.

The real question is not whether change is being proposed — it clearly is. The real question is whether this proposal, in its current form, will ultimately meet the standards of:

• constitutional coherence,
• legal certainty, and
• institutional stability expected of nationality law.

For now, the correct position is one of measured realism: The process is ongoing — but the outcome is not yet determined.

At IAS, we continue to follow developments closely and assess their practical implications, ensuring that clients receive clear, accurate, and context-driven guidance — particularly at a time when public narratives may not fully reflect the legal reality.