Martin van Buren was born in the United States, but was he a natural-born citizen of the United States?

19 May, 2026

I was thinking about Van Buren yesterday because he's the answer to my favorite piece of presidential trivia—which president's first language wasn't English?¹—and thus my contribution to the viral Twitter post about true pieces of history that sound fake.

The other fun fact about Van Buren is that he was the first president born after the revolution—his birthday is December 5th, 1782—and he is often described as the "first president born a citizen of the United States."

That's certainly correct in almost every sense—the first seven presidents were all clearly born as colonial British subjects² and a great variety of legal documents either use the term "United States of America" or declare it to be the name of the new nation, all in effect at the time of Van Buren's birth.

The Declaration of Independence refers to the revolting colonies as the "united States of America," albeit with united not capitalized. A resolution of the continental Congress on September 9, 1776 puts "United States" into formal practice to replace "United Colonies." And the Articles of Confederation, which went into force on March 1, 1781, declare it the official name of the new nation.

Van Buren was clearly born in the United States of America.

But let's go to the modern Constitution, which wasn't drafted until he was almost 5 (still speaking just Dutch!). Here's the first line of the presidential eligibility clause:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

Obviously, Van Buren was eligible to president, as he qualifies under the grandfather clause of being a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, just like the first seven presidents.³ But was he the first to qualify as a natural-born citizen? That's a bit trickier.

Only two presidents were born between the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution—Van Buren and Taylor, who was born in 1784. And Van Buren was the only one born during the war; by Taylor's birth, the British and the world recognized the existence of the United States. Eight presidents (the first seven plus William Henry Harrison (1773)) were clearly born British subjects, and 35 were undoubtedly natural-born citizens, beginning with Tyler (born 1790).

The question obviously hinges on whether you can be a natural born citizen of the United States prior to existence of the Constitution? At first glance, it seems obvious the answer is yes. And Van Buren is the perfect example. He was born in the United States, he was never a British subject or a citizen of another nation. Of course he's a natural-born citizen.

But it gets a bit murkier in my mind if we consider a hypothetical that strips away the Van Buren particulars. Imagine someone who claimed to be a natural-born citizen but didn't qualify under the grandfather clause? This would be someone born in New York in 1782 who then immediately moved to Europe and was a citizen of another country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Were they eligible to be president?⁴

I'm not sure, and it gives me pause.

Ultimately, we'll never know, because the Framers were quite-vague on the natural-born concept, and we're a couple hundred years past the possibility of a interregnum-born president.

But I'm still curious what people think. Van Buren, natural-born citizen?

UPDATE: Law professor Anthony Kreis says the answer is yes, and cites Inglis v. Trustee's of Sailor's Snug Harbor (1830) which has definitive evidence that July 4, 1776 was used as the legal dividing line, at least with regard to inheritance that required U.S. citizenship.