How does intent factor into loss of citizenship for dual nationals compared to sole U.S. citizens?
Executive summary
The Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would treat failure to renounce a foreign nationality within a year as “deemed” voluntary relinquishment of U.S. citizenship — a change that clashes with decades of Supreme Court precedent requiring voluntariness and affirmative intent to lose nationality (see reporting summarizing the bill and constitutional history) [1] [2]. Current reporting stresses the bill is not law and that longstanding case law and State Department practice protect dual nationality absent clear intent to relinquish [3] [4].
1. What the bill would do: force a presumption from inaction
Sen. Bernie Moreno’s bill would forbid anyone from simultaneously holding U.S. and foreign citizenship and would require people with a second nationality to either formally renounce that foreign citizenship or declare they are relinquishing U.S. citizenship within a one‑year window — otherwise they would be “deemed to have voluntarily relinquished” U.S. nationality [1] [5]. Multiple outlets report the measure would convert statutory inaction into presumed intent to relinquish, and that penalty includes immediate loss of U.S. citizenship if the deadline is missed [6] [7].
2. How U.S. law has treated intent historically
Longstanding Supreme Court holdings require both voluntariness and an affirmative intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship; courts have repeatedly held Congress cannot simply stipulate that passive conduct equals intent to give up nationality [2] [4]. Commentators and legal analysts cited in reporting say the Court’s post‑1950s doctrine protects “accidental Americans” and others who did not take deliberate steps to abandon U.S. nationality [3] [4].
3. The constitutional tension: Congress versus the courts
The bill’s core legal problem, as described across coverage, is that it presumes intent from mere failure to act — a rule that critics say “directly conflicts with long‑standing Supreme Court precedent” that loss of citizenship requires proof the individual specifically intended to relinquish it [2] [4]. Analysts predict that statutory redefinition of intent faces substantial constitutional hurdles because courts have repeatedly limited governmental power to strip citizenship absent clear, voluntary relinquishment [3] [1].
4. Practical consequences for dual nationals and “accidental Americans”
If enacted, the statute would place millions of dual nationals — including naturalized citizens, people born with two nationalities, and those who gained a second citizenship by marriage or automatic operation of foreign law — into a one‑year countdown to make a choice, or risk automatic loss of U.S. status [7] [8]. Civil‑liberties and expatriate groups warn the bill could destabilize lives and trigger large numbers of forced renunciations and associated tax consequences under existing expatriation rules [6] [2].
5. Government agencies and other branches: no current administrative movement
Reporting states there is no coordinated legislative or administrative movement already in place to end dual citizenship, and executive agencies have not endorsed abolishing dual nationality; the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual treats dual nationality as a byproduct of overlapping national laws [4] [9]. Multiple outlets underline that the bill is a proposal, not current law, and would require judicial testing if it passed [3] [1].
6. Competing perspectives: national security vs. constitutional protection
Supporters frame the bill as restoring “sole and exclusive allegiance” to guard against conflicts of interest in national security and public service [10] [11]. Opponents and constitutional scholars argue the measure’s mechanism — presuming intent from non‑action — weaponizes statutory deadlines to circumvent judicially protected voluntariness and will provoke litigation [2] [4].
7. What reporting does not specify
Available sources do not mention how the bill would handle narrow edge cases such as dual nationals who cannot renounce a foreign citizenship because the other country forbids renunciation, nor do they supply the precise administrative procedures the State Department or DHS would follow in reclassifying individuals (not found in current reporting). Sources likewise do not include detailed judicial responses because the proposal is at introduction stage [3] [1].
8. Bottom line for readers
The bill seeks to replace the current proof‑of‑intent standard with a statutory presumption based on inaction; that is the core legal shift at issue and the primary reason experts say it will face constitutional challenges under existing Supreme Court doctrine protecting the need for voluntary, affirmative intent to relinquish citizenship [2] [4].