Portugal’s Assembly of the Republic approved revisions to the Nationality Law on April 1, after the governing Social Democratic Party (PSD) struck a last-minute deal with Chega that sidelined the Socialist Party (PS) and its transitional protections for existing residents.
The decree passed 152 to 64, with one abstention from JPP, clearing the two-thirds threshold required for nationality legislation.
A separate vote on amendments to the Penal Code creating loss of nationality as an accessory criminal penalty passed 151 to 65, also with a two-thirds majority.
PSD, Chega, and Liberal Initiative (IL) voted in favor of both decrees. PS, Livre, the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP), Left Bloc (BE), and People-Animals-Nature (PAN) voted against.
What the Deal Changed
PSD parliamentary leader Hugo Soares announced the agreement less than an hour before the debate began, describing it as “an important step in respect of portugalidade.” The deal moved the final text closer to Chega’s positions on two fronts.
The criminal impediment threshold for blocking citizenship dropped from the five years PSD had proposed on Monday to three years, matching Chega’s original demand. Chega’s expanded crime list for loss of nationality also entered the Penal Code text: Criminal association leadership, arms trafficking, and drug trafficking now join the offenses that can trigger nationality revocation.
In exchange, Chega accepted PSD’s rebuttable presumption framework and procedural safeguards for the criminal impediment. Soares confirmed that the self-sufficiency requirement Chega had sought, which would have barred citizenship applicants who received social benefits, was “not discussed.”
Residency timelines remain at seven years for EU and Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP) nationals and ten years for all others. No transitional protections for current residents were included. The PS grandfathering window, graduated phase-in, and preservation of the application-date counting method were all rejected.
The Debate
Minister of the Presidency António Leitão Amaro opened by framing the vote as an opportunity to “correct historical errors,” arguing that the decades-long consensus on nationality had been “broken from 2018 onward.”
PS deputy Pedro Delgado Alves warned that constitutional problems persist. “There are passages of the [Constitutional Court] ruling that they did not read or chose to ignore,” he said, adding that PS had tried to “reduce the damage” but was left “standing on the bridge waiting for someone to approach.”
CDS-People’s Party (CDS-PP) deputy João Almeida went further, accusing the Constitutional Court itself of “judicial activism” and a “lack of sense” for its December ruling. Chega leader André Ventura claimed his party had achieved “extremely important things” and accused PS of having “betrayed the country.”
What Happens Next
The approved decrees now go to President António José Seguro for promulgation. Seguro, who took office following the January 2026 presidential election, is affiliated with the Socialist Party, which opposed the decree and warned of persisting constitutional deficiencies.
Adriano Vieira, a lawyer at Apparcel Uriarte Abogados, noted that “the approval by a two-thirds majority was already expected” but that “the current scenario is not particularly favorable for Golden Visa applicants.” The diploma “is not yet law,” he stressed; Seguro “may still delay promulgation or exercise a veto.” The president “secured a strong majority” and “is affiliated with the Socialist Party, which has been advocating for a more moderate approach and for safeguarding the legitimate expectations of those who have relied on Portugal as an investment route.”
This, Vieira observed, “effectively buys additional time, which may be particularly valuable for those approaching the five-year threshold.”
If Seguro vetoes the decree, Parliament can override with an absolute majority of all deputies (116 of 230). If he refers it to the Constitutional Court for preventive review, as the Socialists did in November 2025, the decree remains suspended until the court rules.
Ventura, speaking after the vote, called the result “a good deal for the country” and cautioned against further constitutional challenges. “Let no one provoke this constitutional conflict any further,” he said, noting that “effectively today there was a two-thirds majority,” a threshold sufficient to override a presidential veto.
André Miranda, a partner at Fieldfisher Portugal, described “a clear sense of déjà vu” from the October 2025 vote, which produced legislation “that proved to be deeply unbalanced and failing to protect the legitimate expectations of those who invested in Portugal.”
That moment, he said, “represented a breach of trust in the country.” There had been “a legitimate expectation that a new version could reflect greater openness,” but instead “what we saw today was a clear political choice that represents a sharp break from Portugal’s tradition of openness in this area.”
Miranda pointed to the president as the remaining check. Seguro “has publicly advocated for a law that is as consensual as possible, rather than one that divides the country, as this one does,” he observed.
Miranda expects Seguro “may still exercise his veto power or refer the law to the Constitutional Court.” “The process is far from over,” he added.
Madalena Monteiro, founder of Liberty Legal, who filed the Golden Visa investors’ amicus curiae brief to the Constitutional Court in December, said the result confirmed her expectations.
“Portugal is following the nationalist wave that is affecting the Western world,” she observed. “It is a pity that parties fall for populist speeches that ignore individual rights and freedoms that took centuries to conquer.”
Parliament’s session, she noted, was “very divided and conflictual.” She would not be surprised to see Seguro “send the law to the Constitutional Court or veto it,” given that the president “has been very vocal on the need to have a broader consensual agreement on this matter.”
Permanent residency after five years remains unaffected. The Golden Visa program itself was not part of the debate.
