What rights do dual citizens have under the US Constitution?
Executive summary
Dual citizenship is legally permitted in the United States: the State Department says U.S. citizens may naturalize abroad without automatically losing U.S. citizenship [1], and multiple sources state that dual nationality is allowed though the Constitution does not explicitly regulate it [2] [1]. Recent executive actions and regulatory initiatives in 2025 have sought to limit aspects of birthright citizenship and to tighten rules affecting dual nationals, and those policies are being litigated and debated [3] [4].
1. Constitutional silence, statutory and judicial scaffolding
The U.S. Constitution’s text does not lay out rules for “dual citizenship” specifically; instead the Fourteenth Amendment declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens” — a provision that has formed the backbone of birthright citizenship and related rights [2] [3]. Because the Constitution does not define dual nationality directly, the practical rules have been built by statute, executive practice and court decisions rather than a clear constitutional clause dedicated to holding two passports [2].
2. Rights that flow from U.S. citizenship apply to dual nationals
When someone is a U.S. citizen — whether solely or also a national of another country — they “owe allegiance to both” countries but retain the rights of U.S. citizenship: passports, voting, and constitutional protections unless and until citizenship is lawfully lost or revoked [1] [5]. Congressional and executive documents, and Department of State guidance, treat dual nationals as U.S. citizens for domestic purposes while acknowledging obligations to both states [1] [5].
3. Citizenship can be lost or challenged under federal law
Although holding another nationality does not itself automatically strip U.S. citizenship, federal law recognizes specific “expatriating” acts and denaturalization paths; recent policy memos and reports indicate the government may prioritize denaturalization in some cases [6]. Available sources describe denaturalization and expatriation as legal mechanisms that can remove citizenship under defined circumstances, and say the Department of Justice has signaled enforcement attention to denaturalization where the law permits it [6].
4. Administrative and policy pressure in 2025 — birthright and reporting rules
The Trump administration issued an executive order in January 2025 titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which attempted to narrow categories of persons born “subject to the jurisdiction” and therefore to restrict automatic birthright citizenship in certain cases; that order and implementation plans have generated litigation and agency guidance [3] [4]. Other 2025 rule changes and agency proposals aim to tighten reporting, tax and immigration procedures affecting people with second nationalities, prompting criticism that enforcement could target dual nationals [4] [7].
5. Courts and Congress remain central battlegrounds
Litigation has already blocked some executive efforts: challenges to the January 2025 measures have produced preliminary injunctions and appeals, and courts are actively parsing whether agencies may limit birthright principles or change administrative practices [4] [8]. Congressional research and hearings have also long debated the scope of citizenship and dual nationality; those legislative and judicial venues will shape whether administrative changes survive [6] [5].
6. Practical consequences for dual nationals — duties, risks, and protections
Dual nationals must obey the laws of both countries and may face extra reporting or tax obligations under tightened rules; agencies are discussing new disclosure or loyalty standards that critics say could create vulnerabilities during security vetting or benefit determinations [1] [7]. At the same time, State Department guidance affirms that acquiring a second nationality does not automatically jeopardize U.S. citizenship [1].
7. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas
Proponents of stricter rules frame reforms as protecting the “meaning” of citizenship and national sovereignty; the White House framed its 2025 order as clarifying who is “subject to the jurisdiction” [3]. Opponents — immigrant-rights groups, some state attorneys general, and observers cited in litigation — argue the moves threaten long-standing 14th Amendment interpretations and could strip rights from people born in the U.S. [8] [9]. Sources also show commentators warning that administrative tightening could be presented as targeted “crackdowns” while leaving the formal legality of dual nationality intact [7] [10].
8. What the available reporting does not settle
Available sources do not mention a single, new constitutional amendment changing dual citizenship rights; nor do they state that holding another nationality by itself presently triggers automatic loss of U.S. citizenship — instead, they describe administrative actions, litigation, statutory frameworks and DOJ denaturalization priorities [1] [6] [3]. The ultimate scope of any change will depend on pending court rulings and further congressional or administrative action [4] [6].
Bottom line: Dual nationals currently retain the rights of U.S. citizens under existing State Department guidance and court precedent, but 2025 executive orders and rulemaking have created contested legal ground that could alter how those rights are administered and enforced; litigation and Congress will decide how far those changes go [1] [3] [4].