Under what legal grounds can the State Department revoke U.S. citizenship for dual nationals?
Executive summary
The core legal rule is that U.S. citizenship cannot be revoked involuntarily except in narrow, court‑recognized circumstances where the government proves the person intended to relinquish nationality or where naturalization was obtained by fraud — dual nationality by itself is not a ground for loss of U.S. nationality [1] [2]. Recent 2025 legislative proposals would force a different outcome by presuming relinquishment for inaction or for acquiring foreign citizenship, but scholars and precedent (Afroyim v. Rusk) say the Constitution requires voluntary surrender and intent, making those proposals legally vulnerable [1] [3].
1. The constitutional ceiling: Afroyim and the voluntariness principle
The Supreme Court’s decision in Afroyim v. Rusk is the baseline: the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizenship and that Congress cannot strip nationality without the citizen’s voluntary renunciation; therefore loss of citizenship requires voluntary action or clear intent to relinquish U.S. nationality [1]. Multiple legal analysts and immigration law summaries reiterate that dual nationality alone does not justify revocation and that the government bears the burden to prove intent to relinquish [2].
2. How the State Department currently treats dual nationals
The State Department and standard U.S. policy accept that U.S. law “does not mention dual nationality” and generally tolerates holding multiple nationalities; the department advises that dual nationals owe allegiance to both countries but does not automatically revoke U.S. citizenship for acquiring foreign nationality [4]. Practically, the Department uses tools like Form DS‑4079 where possible loss of nationality is in question, reflecting a fact‑specific approach rather than an automatic rule [2].
3. Existing legal routes the government uses to remove nationality
Two distinct legal pathways recur in the reporting: (a) denaturalization — civil or criminal proceedings that rescind a naturalized citizen’s citizenship when it was obtained by fraud or concealment, which requires high proof and is pursued by DOJ [5]; and (b) relinquishment/expatriating acts — historically, certain voluntary acts (military service to a hostile power, formal renunciation, or taking an oath to another state) can show intent to relinquish, but the government must prove voluntariness and intent [6] [7] [2].
4. What the 2025 “Exclusive Citizenship Act” would change — and why it’s contested
Sen. Bernie Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would treat acquisition or possession of foreign citizenship as incompatible with U.S. citizenship, creating automatic loss unless the person renounces the foreign citizenship within a year and tasking DHS and State with tracking dual nationals [8] [9] [10]. Legal scholars argue that the bill would conflict with Afroyim’s voluntariness requirement and constitutional protections because it presumes relinquishment from inaction, a move critics say the courts would likely strike down [1] [3].
5. Practical consequences if Congress tried to override precedent
If Congress enacted automatic or deemed expatriation rules, affected people could face severe collateral effects — tax consequences under the “covered expatriate” rules, loss of passport rights, and possible immigration consequences — but the statute would invite immediate constitutional challenges because Supreme Court precedent requires intent and voluntariness [1] [5]. Legal commentators emphasize that the U.S. cannot unilaterally nullify the fact of foreign citizenship as recognized by another state, complicating enforcement [3].
6. Competing perspectives and political motives
Supporters frame ending dual citizenship as restoring “exclusive allegiance” and national integrity, and propose administrative systems to enforce it [9] [11]. Opponents — including constitutional scholars cited in reporting — say the bill’s premise is legally unsound and will likely fail judicial review; some see political motives in targeting dual nationals for perceived conflicts of interest [3] [1]. Reporting also flags practical enforcement challenges and privacy concerns related to tracking citizens’ foreign ties [10].
7. What reporting does not answer
Available sources do not mention precise implementation rules the State Department would use day‑to‑day if the law passed, nor do they provide definitive court outcomes for any future litigation challenging the 2025 proposals — those questions remain unreported in the supplied material (not found in current reporting).