Can the US government revoke citizenship of a dual national under current law?
Executive summary
Current law permits Americans to hold dual citizenship; Senator Bernie Moreno’s new “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” would force dual nationals to choose or be treated as having relinquished U.S. citizenship within a year, but experts and outlets say the measure would likely face constitutional challenges because courts have long required a voluntary act to lose citizenship [1] [2]. The bill would direct the State Department to create rules and a database and treat people deemed to have relinquished citizenship as aliens for immigration purposes [3] [2].
1. Dual nationality is legal today — the bill tries to reverse decades of practice
For decades the United States has allowed dual nationality and “does not require a U.S. citizen to choose between the U.S. and another (foreign) nationality,” according to reporting summarizing current policy [4] [5]. Moreno’s bill would instead make “sole and exclusive allegiance” the rule and bar anyone from “simultaneously possessing any foreign citizenship” [6] [2].
2. What the Exclusive Citizenship Act would do in practice
The text would require existing dual citizens to either renounce their foreign citizenship or formally renounce U.S. citizenship within one year; failure to comply would be treated as voluntary relinquishment under INA section 349(a), with people “treated as an alien for purposes of the immigration laws” [2] [7]. The State Department, Attorney General and DHS would be tasked with verification, recordkeeping and treating those deemed to have relinquished U.S. status as noncitizens [3] [2].
3. Enforcement and logistics: a massive new federal apparatus
News coverage notes the bill mandates the State Department build an unprecedented system to identify and process dual citizens — a task complicated by the fact the federal government does not maintain a registry of dual nationals today [1] [6]. Reporting flags practical problems such as countries that refuse to accept unilateral renunciations and the difficulty of verifying foreign citizenships [3] [8].
4. Constitutional and legal obstacles are front-and-center
Multiple outlets and experts predict significant legal challenges because Supreme Court precedent — notably Afroyim v. Rusk — has held that citizenship cannot be taken away absent a voluntary act by the citizen; courts have historically required intent or a voluntary expatriating act for loss of nationality [1] [3]. Coverage says the bill “flouts” those protections by presuming relinquishment from inaction, which legal commentators say courts could strike down [3] [1].
5. Who would be affected — and how many is uncertain
Reporting warns the scope could be large but is unclear because eligibility for foreign citizenship is not equivalent to holding it, and the government lacks reliable counts of dual nationals [6]. Commentators note naturalized citizens, U.S.-born dual nationals, children who acquire a second nationality by parentage, and people who later naturalize abroad could all be swept in [3] [4].
6. Downstream consequences: immigration status, taxes, politics
Analysts point to additional consequences: anyone who loses U.S. citizenship under the bill could be reclassified as an alien for immigration law, and automatic or deemed expatriation could trigger the U.S. “covered expatriate” tax rules and exit-tax consequences for wealthy individuals [3] [9]. Politically, the move aligns with a recent Republican focus on tightening citizenship rules and follows other administration efforts to limit birthright citizenship and tighten eligibility — actions that have themselves prompted litigation [10] [11].
7. Competing perspectives and likely trajectory
Supporters frame the bill as protecting national allegiance; Moreno says citizens must owe “sole and exclusive allegiance” [6]. Opponents — including constitutional scholars quoted in reporting — argue it removes voluntary-intent protections and would almost certainly prompt court battles [1] [3]. Several stories note Senate committee and judicial hurdles make passage and enforcement uncertain [1] [2].
8. What reporting does not show
Available sources do not mention final text amendments that might try to cure constitutional problems, congressional prospects on specific timetables, or any formal legal opinions from the Justice Department interpreting the bill’s constitutionality (not found in current reporting). Sources also do not provide a reliable count of current dual nationals because no federal registry exists [6].
Bottom line: current law permits dual citizenship; Moreno’s bill would create a statutory mechanism to treat noncompliance as relinquishment and force renunciations, but it faces steep logistical hurdles and likely constitutional scrutiny grounded in decades of Supreme Court precedent [2] [1] [3].