Under what legal grounds can the U.S. revoke citizenship of a dual national?
Executive summary
U.S. law currently recognizes that dual citizenship is permitted and longstanding Supreme Court precedent protects against involuntary loss of citizenship; recent legislation — the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” introduced by Sen. Bernie Moreno — seeks to create automatic or “deemed” relinquishment for people who retain or acquire foreign nationality, effectively revoking U.S. citizenship if they do not renounce the other nationality within a year [1] [2]. Major outlets report the bill would treat noncompliance as voluntary relinquishment under Immigration and Nationality Act §349(a) and would direct agencies to track dual nationals [2] [3].
1. How U.S. law currently treats dual nationals — constitutional and administrative background
The State Department and multiple news accounts say U.S. law presently allows citizens to hold foreign citizenship simultaneously; the Foreign Affairs Manual calls dual nationality a “natural consequence” of foreign laws and courts have long protected citizens from being involuntarily stripped of nationality [4] [5]. Historical Supreme Court rulings — including Afroyim v. Rusk and Kawakita v. United States — are cited in contemporary reporting as barriers to government-driven involuntary expatriation, making the constitutional landscape protective of dual nationals [1] [6].
2. The new legal mechanism proposed: automatic or “deemed” relinquishment
Senator Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act would change the trigger for loss of citizenship by treating failure to renounce foreign nationality within a set time as voluntary relinquishment under section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; several outlets report the bill would also treat later acquisition of any foreign nationality as automatic relinquishment [2] [1]. Forbes and The Hill emphasize the bill eliminates certain burdens the government now bears — notably voluntariness and affirmative intent — by presuming relinquishment from inaction [2] [1].
3. Enforcement tools the bill would create
Reporting says the proposed law would direct the State Department to build a database of people with multiple citizenships and assign agencies like DHS and State responsibility for tracking and reclassifying affected individuals, after which immigration laws could apply to them like noncitizens [3] [7]. News coverage also warns the bill’s “deemed” expatriation could trigger tax consequences under covered expatriate rules, creating major downstream penalties for wealthy or noncompliant people [2].
4. Constitutional resistance and practical limits cited by commentators
Analysts and multiple outlets note the bill would likely collide with constitutional protections affirmed in Supreme Court decisions that have limited Congress or the executive from stripping citizenship absent clear voluntary intent [1] [5]. Coverage emphasizes practical barriers: many foreign states (Argentina, Philippines, Mexico, India) make renunciation legally or procedurally difficult or impossible within short deadlines, which critics say would mean Americans could be punished for another country’s rules [4].
5. Political context and motives behind the push
Sen. Moreno frames the bill as ensuring “sole and exclusive allegiance” and a defense against divided loyalties; coverage from his office and news outlets presents the proposal as an effort to “preserve the integrity” of national citizenship and avoid conflicts of interest [8] [5]. Opponents and some reporting characterize the effort as sweeping and unprecedented, noting there is no broad administrative or legislative movement already in favor of abolishing dual citizenship [4].
6. What the sources disagree on or leave open
Reporting converges on the bill’s text and intent — automatic loss or deemed relinquishment tied to failure to renounce — but sources diverge on likely outcomes: some emphasize constitutional roadblocks and historical precedent that protect dual nationals [1] [5], while proponents see enforceable mechanisms and national-security rationales [8]. Available sources do not mention how courts would rule on this specific statute if enacted, nor do they provide final legal analysis of how Afroyim or related cases would be applied to the bill’s “deemed” relinquishment provisions (not found in current reporting).
7. What dual nationals should watch next
Coverage recommends tracking whether the bill advances in committee and what legal challenges follow; reporters also flag practical timelines in the bill (one-year windows) and possible tax implications for people reclassified as expatriates [2] [6]. Public opinion polling cited shows only about one-third of Americans support eliminating dual citizenship, suggesting political feasibility is uncertain [9].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the provided news reports and press materials; detailed statutory text, floor debates, and judicial responses beyond what these sources report are not included here (available sources do not mention full legislative text or subsequent court filings) [2] [4].