Can the U.S. government revoke citizenship of a dual national without consent?
Executive summary
The U.S. government currently cannot strip someone of citizenship simply because they hold another passport; longstanding Supreme Court precedent requires a voluntary, affirmative act showing intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship (see Afroyim and related rulings cited in reporting) and the Moreno bill would reverse that by deeming inaction as relinquishment [1] [2]. Senator Bernie Moreno’s “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” would give dual citizens one year to renounce one citizenship or be “deemed to have voluntarily relinquished” U.S. citizenship — a change that legal analysts and multiple outlets say would face serious constitutional challenges [3] [1] [2].
1. What current law and Supreme Court precedent say: voluntariness and intent protect citizenship
Existing law and Supreme Court decisions make loss of U.S. citizenship contingent on a voluntary, affirmative act coupled with intent to relinquish citizenship; reporting notes that Afroyim and later cases set a high bar, so simply acquiring or keeping a foreign nationality does not automatically forfeit U.S. citizenship without that intent [1] [4]. Analysts quoted in coverage warn that the Moreno bill’s presumption that inaction equals relinquishment conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by the Court and thus would be constitutionally problematic [2] [1].
2. What the Moreno bill would change: automatic or “deemed” relinquishment by inaction
Sen. Bernie Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would prohibit holding U.S. citizenship simultaneously with any foreign citizenship, require a regulatory system and database, and compel current dual citizens to choose within a one‑year window — otherwise they would be treated as having voluntarily relinquished U.S. citizenship and “treated as an alien” for immigration purposes [3] [1] [2]. News reports and the senator’s press release make clear the bill would shift the burden: it removes the need for the government to prove voluntariness and intent by deeming failure to renounce another citizenship as relinquishment [5] [2].
3. Legal and practical obstacles flagged by reporters and analysts
Multiple outlets and legal commentators say the bill would confront “serious challenges” on constitutional grounds because it conflicts with Supreme Court precedent protecting citizenship from involuntary loss [1] [2]. Practical enforcement problems are also noted: the U.S. does not currently maintain a comprehensive registry of dual nationals, the Secretary of State would be asked to create one, and the bill’s mechanics — identifying people, verifying foreign citizenships, and imposing penalties — raise operational and privacy concerns reported in the coverage [2] [6].
4. Political framing and motives: allegiance, national integrity, and reaction
Sen. Moreno frames the measure as restoring “sole and exclusive allegiance” to the United States and preventing “divided loyalties,” language repeated in his press release and media stories [3] [7]. Coverage of public reaction, including a large reader backlash in Cleveland.com and other outlets, shows the proposal is politically controversial and perceived by many as heavy‑handed or out of touch [8] [9].
5. Broader consequences flagged: tax, immigration, and constitutional litigation
Observers warn the bill could trigger harsh tax consequences for those deemed to have expatriated — invoking “covered expatriate” rules — and would likely generate litigation that could reach the Supreme Court [5] [2]. Reporting also notes the bill would require coordination with Homeland Security to treat affected people as noncitizens under immigration law, a step with far‑reaching consequences beyond mere passport status [1] [2].
6. Competing viewpoints and unresolved questions
Supporters argue the law would strengthen national unity and eliminate potential conflicts of interest [3] [7]. Opponents — including legal scholars cited in reporting — argue it’s unconstitutional and impractical, citing Afroyim and related precedents [1] [4]. Available sources do not mention detailed legislative prospects (e.g., likelihood of passage in Congress) or whether the bill includes exceptions for children born with dual nationality; those specifics are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. Bottom line for dual nationals and observers
Under current law, the U.S. cannot unilaterally and automatically strip citizenship from a dual national without proof of voluntary, intentional relinquishment; the Moreno bill seeks to reverse that standard by treating inaction as relinquishment, but coverage uniformly notes constitutional and practical hurdles that make its enforceability and survival in court doubtful [1] [2]. Watch for extended legal analysis and potential litigation if the bill advances out of committee, and note the sharp public and media backlash already reported [8] [9].