Can Congress pass new statutes to revoke citizenship of dual nationals without due process?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Congress has before it the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, which would require dual nationals to renounce one citizenship within a year or be “deemed to have voluntarily relinquished United States citizenship” [1] [2]. Major news outlets, legal commentators and bill text excerpts report that the proposal would create automatic loss mechanisms and a federal register of dual nationals—steps that critics say collide with Supreme Court precedent holding that citizenship cannot be stripped absent voluntary renunciation [3] [1] [4].
1. What the bill would do — blunt mechanics and deadlines
Sen. Bernie Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would make it unlawful to hold U.S. citizenship simultaneously with another nationality, require current dual citizens to choose within one year, and direct agencies to record and treat those who fail to comply as having relinquished U.S. citizenship for immigration purposes [1] [2] [5]. Reporting and analysis note the bill would also require the State Department to create verification, declaration and recordkeeping systems and coordinate with DOJ and DHS [1] [6].
2. How the bill would accomplish expatriation — “deemed” relinquishment, not adjudication
The proposal’s central mechanism is administrative deeming: failure to submit the required written renunciation within the statutory period would result in automatic loss of nationality rather than individualized adjudication or a finding of subjective intent, a change flagged repeatedly in coverage [3] [2] [7]. News reports emphasize the bill’s language presuming relinquishment from inaction and instructing agencies to record affected people as aliens under immigration law [3] [1].
3. Constitutional and precedent problem — the Supreme Court’s wire cross-cut
Multiple outlets and legal analysts say the bill appears to conflict with longstanding Supreme Court doctrine that protects citizenship from congressional destruction absent voluntary intent to abandon it. Coverage cites Afroyim v. Rusk and later decisions holding that Congress cannot strip citizenship without voluntary renunciation [3] [4]. Commentators quoted in the press call the law likely “dead on arrival” in constitutional terms if challenged [4].
4. Supporters’ frame — allegiance and national integrity
Proponents frame the legislation as restoring “sole and exclusive allegiance” and preventing conflicts of interest by public officials and citizens with formal ties to foreign governments; Senator Moreno’s office and supporters present the change as preserving the integrity of citizenship [8] [5]. Those who favor the idea argue current practice allows divided loyalties and cite historical precedents when citizenship loss was used to enforce singular allegiance [5].
5. Opponents’ concerns — due process, tax and practical fallout
Opponents and analysts warn the automatic expatriation mechanism eliminates burdensome proof protections, raises due-process concerns, and has ancillary consequences such as triggering “covered expatriate” tax penalties and immigration status changes for millions—especially in communities with high dual-national populations [3] [2]. Reports note that the bill would impose practical burdens on people who, through birth or circumstance, hold multiple nationalities and could leave them stateless in edge cases or subject to severe tax consequences [3] [2].
6. Where the bill stands — procedural stage and pathway
The measure was introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee; reporters caution it is a proposal, not law, and faces a lengthy legislative process and foreseeable court challenges if it advances [9] [10]. Coverage repeatedly stresses tracking the bill on official sources and that its text is available for scrutiny [9] [2].
7. Competing viewpoints and political context
Media reporting situates this bill amid a broader Republican push to restrict dual citizenship or require disclosure for officeholders; other lawmakers have introduced related measures targeting eligibility to serve in Congress [11] [12]. Advocates frame the bill as a patriotism and security measure [8]; critics see it as an erosion of constitutional protections and a politically driven campaign to restrict immigrants’ rights [11] [6].
8. Limitations of current reporting and next steps for readers
Available sources document the bill’s text and reactions but do not include judicial rulings on this specific statute because it is not yet law, nor do they present an official DOJ constitutional analysis of the draft [9] [10]. If you want to follow developments, monitor Congress.gov for amendments and committee actions and watch legal commentary about how courts would treat “deemed” relinquishment in light of Afroyim and subsequent cases [9] [4].
Summary takeaway: The bill would use administrative, automatic mechanisms to strip dual nationals who do not act within a year, a design that multiple news and legal sources say squarely conflicts with Supreme Court precedent protecting citizenship absent voluntary intent [3] [4].