Argentina's Programme and the Decree 366/2025 Court Case: Risks for Investors

The programme's legal basis: the short version

In brief: the investment ground for naturalisation was introduced by Decree 366/2025. The National Electoral Chamber declared the decree void, the government appealed, and the dispute is before the Supreme Court. Pending its ruling, the programme has been announced, but its legal basis is contested.

The situation is unusual: the government is launching a programme while the courts argue over the legality of its foundation. This does not mean the programme will not work, nor that it will certainly work under the announced rules. It means the investor faces a legal risk that has to be factored into the decision and into the order of payment.

BRIDGES describes the programme on the Argentine citizenship by investment page with the same caveat. The purpose of this article is to explain the dispute so that a family can make its own decision: what is known, what is not and which steps are safe to take now.

What Decree 366/2025 changed

In brief: the decree of 28 May 2025 added to the Citizenship Law a ground for naturalisation through a significant investment with no residence period, transferred citizenship decisions to the migration service and tightened the conditions for ordinary naturalisation.

Before the decree, citizenship by naturalisation was granted by federal judges - as it had been since 1869, when Citizenship Law No. 346 was adopted. A foreigner applied to the court after two years of residence, and the judge checked the documents and ruled. Decree 366/2025 changed three things. First, citizenship decisions passed to the National Directorate of Migration. Second, the two years of residence must be lawful, continuous and without leaving the country. Third, a new ground appeared: a significant investment in Argentina, which replaces the residence requirement.

Decree 524/2025 of 31 July 2025 set out the procedure for the investment ground. The application is filed with the Citizenship by Investment Programme Agency under the Ministry of Economy; the Agency checks the investment and the applicant and sends a recommendation to the migration service, which decides within 30 working days. Decree 285/2026 appointed the Agency's executive director.

Decree 366/2025 is a decree of necessity and urgency. The President of Argentina issues such decrees in place of a law in exceptional cases, and they remain in force until Congress or a court overturns them. The Constitution prohibits such decrees in several areas, including the electoral one.

The timeline shows the central conflict: the government keeps building the programme on a decree that the courts have already found invalid as regards citizenship. The terms were announced on 2 October, a week after the dispute moved to the Supreme Court. The exact amount for your family will be shown by the Argentine citizenship cost calculation.

What the courts decided

In brief: on 18 June 2026 the Civil and Commercial Appeals Chamber found the decree unconstitutional as regards citizenship. On 30 June the National Electoral Chamber declared it void and returned citizenship decisions to federal judges.

The National Electoral Chamber's ruling

The case concerned an entrepreneur from China who has lived in the province of Entre Rios for 11 years and had been refused citizenship. The chamber heard the appeal and concluded that citizenship is bound up with electoral rights: a citizen votes and may stand for office. Article 99 of the Argentine Constitution prohibits the president from regulating electoral matters by decrees of necessity and urgency, on pain of absolute nullity. The chamber therefore declared Decree 366/2025 void, overturned the refusal and granted the applicant citizenship.

The chamber noted separately that the government had not proven an urgency that would justify a decree instead of a law. It treated the arguments about overloaded courts and the need for control as questions of expediency, which are for Congress to decide. The ruling was sent to the Ministry of Security for instructions to the migration service and to all federal judges with electoral jurisdiction, in order to align practice.

Other rulings

Earlier still, on 18 June 2026, the third division of the National Civil and Commercial Appeals Chamber found the decree unconstitutional as regards citizenship in the case of another applicant. In August 2026 a federal court in Esquel found certain articles of the decree unconstitutional and heard a citizenship application under the previous conditions of the law.

Where the dispute stands now

In brief: the Ministry of Security and the migration service filed an extraordinary appeal. On 24 September 2026 the chamber admitted it, and the case file went to the Supreme Court. As of 9 October 2026 there is no ruling.

In its appeal the government calls the chamber's ruling arbitrary and points to the institutional significance of the dispute. The chamber admitted the appeal because the dispute concerns the interpretation of federal rules, but rejected the argument of arbitrariness: in its view the ruling is sufficiently reasoned. The question of institutional significance was left to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has no deadlines. It may first decide whether to suspend the chamber's ruling and then hear the dispute on the merits. Press reports note that the court has not yet ruled on the merits of any of the current president's decrees of necessity and urgency. It is therefore sensible to plan on the ruling taking months.

Until there is a ruling, two regimes are in effect in Argentina. Some courts hear citizenship applications under Law No. 346 as previously worded, while the government continues to work under the decrees and is building the investment programme. For an investor this is the main source of uncertainty.

The uncertainty is not limited to the investment programme. Decree 366/2025 also changed other rules for foreigners: entry conditions, medical insurance, fees for state healthcare and universities for foreigners without permanent residence. The chamber declared the decree void in its entirety, so the Supreme Court's ruling will affect all these rules, and the government points this out specifically in its appeal.

The government's position

In brief: the government considers the chamber's ruling arbitrary, insists that the decree is in force and is pressing ahead with the programme. The Ministry of Economy expects to raise significant dollar inflows through it.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the government argues that the chamber declared the entire decree void, although the case concerned only citizenship, while the decree also covers migration, healthcare and education for foreigners. The government also points out that the Ministry of Security and the migration service did not take part in the proceedings at the first stage. These arguments are not about the substance of the investment programme but about the limits of the chamber's ruling.

The programme's economic motive is open: Argentina is looking for dollar inflows to service its debt, and the programme provides them without borrowing. The government's consortium of advisers estimated possible proceeds at $2.5 billion at the expected number of applications. The government therefore has an interest in keeping the programme and, by the logic of events, will seek a stable basis for it - through a Supreme Court ruling or a law.

How the dispute affects the investment programme

In brief: the investment ground and review through the Agency were introduced by the contested decree. If the Supreme Court confirms the nullity, the programme will need a law or a different procedure.

The chambers' rulings concerned ordinary naturalisation, not investment applications: the investment programme has not yet accepted any applications. But the chamber's reasoning applies to the entire decree as regards citizenship. If citizenship is an electoral matter closed to decrees, then the investment ground introduced by the same decree is left without support. The government's position is that the decree is in force until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

For an applicant, what matters is which stage they are at when the court rules. If no application has been filed, the risk is minimal: the family waits for clarity. If an application has been filed and the contribution paid, the question is whether the regulations will provide for a refund if the ground is struck down. If citizenship has already been granted, the question is the protection of acquired rights: as of October 2026 neither the court nor the regulations have settled it.

Four scenarios

In brief: the Supreme Court may back the government, confirm the nullity or take a long time to decide. A separate route is a law passed by Congress that would end the dispute.

The most stable scenario for an investor is a law. If Congress enshrines the investment ground in law, the dispute over the president's powers will lose its relevance. If the Supreme Court backs the government, the programme will work under the announced procedure, but the chambers' arguments will remain in the legal arena. If the court confirms the nullity, the government may introduce a bill or rebuild the review procedure through the courts.

The drawn-out scenario is the most awkward: the programme starts and applications are accepted, but the legal basis remains contested. In this scenario the order of payment and the refund terms set by the regulations are particularly important.

What this means for ordinary naturalisation

In brief: courts that follow the chamber's ruling hear citizenship applications under Law No. 346 as previously worded. The requirement of two years without leaving the country, introduced by the decree, is not applied in these courts.

For foreigners obtaining citizenship after living in Argentina, the chamber's ruling changed practice. Applications are once again accepted by federal judges, and the chamber noted that the categories of the migration law do not in themselves determine whether the residence requirement has been met. The government continues to insist on the decree's rules. Until the Supreme Court rules, the procedure depends on the court and on where the application is filed. Ordinary grounds are covered in detail in the article how to obtain Argentine citizenship.

For families considering giving birth in Argentina, the dispute matters too: the decree abolished the simplified route to citizenship for parents of an Argentine child. How the rules changed and what is known after the court rulings is explained in the article giving birth in Argentina after 2025.

How to prepare without putting money at risk

In brief: documents and proof of the source of funds are prepared now, and money is transferred only once the regulations are out, the court position is clear and the refund terms are understood.

1. Preparing documents. Certificates, criminal record certificates, apostilles and translation into Spanish do not depend on the outcome of the dispute and are needed in any scenario.
2. Proof of funds. The history of the money is assembled in advance: it is a long stage and the main risk of refusal.
3. Preliminary check. A preliminary due diligence check shows weak points before filing. The starting point is the preliminary due diligence questionnaire.
4. The banking route. The account through which the payment will go is prepared in advance, especially if the transfer comes from a country with restrictions.
5. Reading the regulations. Before paying, check the moment of payment and the refund terms in case of refusal and if the ground is struck down.
6. The court ruling. The contribution transfer is planned with the Supreme Court ruling or a law of Congress in mind.

This sequence makes it possible to apply in the first days after the risk becomes acceptable, without holding money in a programme whose legal basis is contested. How much the programme costs for your family is shown in the article the cost of Argentine citizenship.

Seven questions for the regulations before paying

In brief: before transferring money, the family should have answers to seven questions: the moment of payment, refunds on refusal and if the ground is struck down, the bond terms, fees, timelines and the decision procedure.

1. When the contribution is paid. Before the check, after the Agency's recommendation or after the citizenship decision.
2. Whether the contribution is refunded on refusal. In full, in part or not at all.
3. What happens if the ground is struck down. Whether there is a refund if a court or Congress abolishes the investment ground before the decision.
4. Bond terms. Currency and repayment schedule, the right to transfer and early sale.
5. Fees. Amounts for review and checks, for each family member.
6. Timelines. How long the Agency's check lasts before the recommendation, in addition to the 30 working days for the decision.
7. Who takes the decision. The migration service under the decree, or another body if the procedure changes after the court ruling.

The answers to these questions will appear in the Ministry of Economy's resolution and the Agency's regulations. BRIDGES will analyse them as soon as they are published and update the estimate and recommendations for families preparing documents.

How BRIDGES works in this situation

In brief: BRIDGES prepares documents and proof of funds in advance, does not accept money for the contribution until things are clear and shows the family alternatives if the passport is needed quickly.

Work on Argentina's programme is currently organised in two stages. At the first stage the family goes through a preliminary due diligence check, collects and translates documents, and prepares the history of funds and the banking route for the payment. This stage is useful whatever the outcome: the same documents suit other citizenship and residence programmes. The second stage - filing and payment - begins once the regulations are published and the position of the court or the law is clear.

If during preparation it turns out that the family needs a passport within the next few months, BRIDGES proposes a programme with an established legal basis and keeps the prepared documents for Argentina. That way the family loses no time and does not hold money in a contested programme.

Alternatives while you wait

In brief: if the family needs a second passport quickly, there are programmes with an established legal basis. Argentina can be considered as a second step.

The programmes of Vanuatu, the Caribbean countries and Turkey have operated for years under laws rather than contested decrees. Vanuatu issues a passport in 2-3 months from $130,000, the Caribbean countries from $200,000, and Turkey through real estate from $400,000. The Caribbean programmes are closed to Russian citizens for 2026, so for them Vanuatu and Turkey are the main options. If the family's goal is a passport within the next few months, it is sensible to start with one of these and to follow Argentina's programme and apply once the dispute is resolved. Comparisons are in the articles Argentina or Vanuatu, Argentina or the Caribbean and Argentina or Turkey.

Where investors go wrong

In brief: most often they pay before the regulations, mistake the programme announcement for a law and count on a quick court ruling.

1. They treat the programme announcement as law. A ministry statement is not a legal act; the amounts will be fixed by a resolution.
2. They pay before the regulations. The moment of payment and the refund terms have not yet been set.
3. They expect a quick court ruling. The Supreme Court has no deadlines.
4. They do not prepare documents while waiting. Preparation does not depend on the dispute and takes the most time.
5. They rely on verbal promises. Nobody, including the government, can guarantee the outcome of the dispute.

What to keep track of

In brief: the Supreme Court ruling, the Ministry of Economy's resolution with the programme terms, bills in Congress and the Agency's regulations.

• The Supreme Court's ruling on the nullity of Decree 366/2025.
• The Ministry of Economy's resolution with the amounts, bond terms and fees.
• The Agency's regulations: moment of payment, refunds, timelines.
• Bills on citizenship by investment in Congress.
• Court practice on ordinary naturalisation.

BRIDGES tracks these changes and updates the programme page and articles as news comes in. What citizenship gives if the programme gets going is covered in the article what Argentine citizenship gives.

How the dispute over the decree changes every route to citizenship is explained in the article Argentine citizenship in 2026.