Under what circumstances can the US involuntarily revoke citizenship of a dual national?
Executive summary
The United States can strip or lose citizenship in limited circumstances: for naturalized citizens, courts and laws allow denaturalization for fraud in the naturalization process, and both native‑born and naturalized citizens can be deemed to have “relinquished” citizenship by committing certain expatriating acts—but U.S. courts require voluntariness and intent, and recent proposals and executive actions aim to expand revocation tools, creating legal and political fights [1] [2] [3]. Senator Bernie Moreno’s “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” would create a new automatic mechanism to treat failure to renounce foreign citizenship as loss of U.S. citizenship, a change that conflicts with Supreme Court precedent protecting against involuntary stripping [2] [3].
1. How citizenship has been lost historically: fraud, voluntary acts and hostile service
Under long‑standing law, the government has pursued two main paths: denaturalization of naturalized citizens who procured citizenship by fraud or misrepresentation, and loss by voluntary expatriation when a person deliberately takes actions showing an intent to relinquish U.S. nationality—examples cited by legal summaries include swearing an oath of allegiance to another state, serving in a foreign army hostile to the U.S., or committing treason [4] [1]. Congressional research notes that denaturalization remains a tool for those who improperly obtained citizenship, and that expatriation doctrine covers both naturalized and native‑born citizens when they voluntarily abandon nationality [1].
2. The constitutional limit: voluntariness and the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that loss of U.S. citizenship cannot be imposed involuntarily; voluntariness and affirmative intent are constitutionally required. Reporters and analysts warn that automatic or presumed expatriation schemes—treating mere inaction as relinquishment—contradict cases such as Afroyim v. Rusk and later precedent that protect citizens from being stripped of nationality without their voluntary renunciation [2] [3]. Multiple outlets note the Moreno bill’s central mechanism would “presume” relinquishment from inaction, a clear legal flashpoint [2] [3].
3. What the new Moreno bill would change—and why it matters
Sen. Bernie Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would bar any person from simultaneously holding U.S. and foreign citizenship and would treat failure to renounce a foreign nationality within a year as automatic loss of U.S. citizenship; the proposal would also remove procedural burdens the government currently faces in proving intent to relinquish citizenship [5] [2]. Supporters frame it as restoring “sole and exclusive allegiance” and preventing conflicts of interest; critics and constitutional scholars cited in coverage argue it would conflict with judicial protections and create mass expatriation risks, including tax and civil consequences for those deemed “covered expatriates” [2] [6].
4. Executive‑branch moves and enforcement priorities
Separately from new legislation, the Department of Justice has signaled a renewed enforcement focus on denaturalization, with internal memos elevating denaturalization in cases tied to crimes or alleged fraud—media coverage places this in a broader post‑attack enforcement posture that targets some naturalized citizens [7] [1]. The administration has also pursued other citizenship‑restricting actions—some litigated in courts—so enforcement policy is shifting even as statutory and constitutional constraints remain relevant [8] [9].
5. Scale, collateral effects and political context
News outlets estimate a large pool of Americans could be affected if the law targeted eligibility rather than actual status—Forbes cited a figure that as many as 40% of Americans could be eligible for foreign citizenship even if they don’t hold it—but being “eligible” is not the same as actually having dual nationality; analysts warn the bill’s automatic loss provision could trigger severe tax consequences and other collateral harms for people who fail to act [6] [2]. The bill is politically charged: sponsors invoke loyalty and national cohesion while opponents point to constitutional limits and the risk of politically motivated or administrative mistakes stripping citizenship [5] [3].
6. Competing legal viewpoints and likely judicial battles
Legal scholarship and reporting make clear there is a split between those who argue Congress can limit dual nationality by statutory means and those who say the Constitution protects against involuntary expatriation; multiple outlets expect Moreno’s proposal to face immediate legal challenges if enacted because it clashes with Supreme Court precedent requiring voluntariness [3] [2]. Available sources do not mention the detailed litigation strategy opponents would use beyond invoking Afroyim and other cases (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this analysis relies on the news and legal summaries provided; it does not include unprovided court opinions or private agency memos beyond cited reporting. For specific legal advice about an individual’s citizenship risk, consult counsel—current sources describe policy direction and legislative text but do not resolve final constitutional outcomes [2] [1].