Does U.S. law bar members of Congress from holding dual citizenship or foreign allegiance?
Executive summary
U.S. law currently does not categorically bar Americans — including members of Congress — from holding dual citizenship; multiple news reports note Senator Bernie Moreno’s new “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” would try to outlaw dual citizenship and require renunciation or deem it relinquished [1] [2]. The bill would force current dual citizens to choose within a year or be “deemed to have voluntarily relinquished United States citizenship,” but legal scholars and precedent — notably Afroyim v. Rusk — create a powerful constitutional obstacle to automatic loss of citizenship [2] [3].
1. Dual citizenship today: legally permitted and common
Current U.S. practice allows many Americans to hold citizenship in another country; reporting across outlets emphasizes that U.S. law and practice have long accommodated dual nationality rather than universally prohibiting it [1] [4]. Newsweek and The Hill note Congress has historically recognized dual citizenship as a status “long recognized in the law,” and the government does not maintain a registry of dual citizens, so exact numbers are unclear [4] [1].
2. What Moreno’s bill would change — mechanics and scope
Sen. Bernie Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would declare that a U.S. citizen “may not be a citizen or national of the United States while simultaneously possessing any foreign citizenship,” require the State Department to create verification systems, and give existing dual citizens one year to renounce the foreign nationality or submit written renunciation of U.S. citizenship, with failure to act resulting in being deemed to have relinquished U.S. citizenship [1] [2]. The bill also directs coordination with DHS and the Justice Department to record relinquishments and treat such people as aliens for immigration purposes [1] [5].
3. Constitutional and judicial headwinds — Afroyim and related precedent
Multiple outlets cite Supreme Court precedent that strongly limits congressional power to strip citizenship involuntarily, especially Afroyim v. Rusk , where the Court held Congress cannot revoke U.S. citizenship absent voluntary renunciation [3] [2] [1]. Analysts quoted in coverage warn Moreno’s automatic-deeming mechanism would conflict with that precedent and invite constitutional challenges [3] [2].
4. Political motives and targeted effects
Sponsors frame the bill as an anti–“divided loyalties” measure and a response to perceived conflicts of interest among dual citizens; Moreno’s office explicitly says dual citizenship “could create conflicts of interest” [5] [6]. Coverage highlights potential political targets and consequences — including high-profile dual citizens such as First Lady Melania Trump — and notes critics see the measure as part of a broader Republican push to tighten citizenship and disclosure rules [4] [7] [8].
5. Practical enforcement problems and unintended consequences
Reporting highlights practical obstacles: the U.S. does not require citizens to declare foreign citizenship and many countries do not accept unilateral renunciations, complicating any one‑year compliance window; the bill would also trigger complex tax and immigration consequences under existing law for those deemed to have expatriated [3] [4] [9]. News analyses warn the secretary of state and DHS would face a massive verification and recordkeeping task [1] [4].
6. Competing legislative efforts and disclosure proposals
This bill is one element of a broader set of GOP proposals: some Republicans have pushed disclosure mandates or bans on dual citizens serving in Congress (referenced by Newsweek), while earlier bills and social-media claims have proposed even more sweeping exclusions for naturalized citizens — claims that fact-checkers have disputed as not enacted law [8] [10]. Coverage shows disagreement within conservative ranks about whether the right remedy is disclosure, renunciation, or an outright ban [8].
7. Bottom line: status quo vs. a hard legal fight
As of reporting, nothing in the sources indicates U.S. law currently bars members of Congress from holding dual citizenship; instead, the new Moreno bill would attempt to create such a bar but faces constitutional precedent and practical hurdles that make its enactment and enforcement uncertain [2] [3] [1]. Available sources do not mention an enacted law that forces federal officeholders to resign immediately for dual citizenship — fact-checking outlets have flagged similar claims about other proposals as inaccurate or premature [10].
Limitations and sources: This briefing relies solely on contemporary news accounts and summaries of Sen. Moreno’s proposal cited above (Forbes, The Hill, Cleveland.com, Newsweek, Moreno’s press release and other reporting) and does not include primary legislative text beyond what reporters quote; the constitutional analysis above is drawn from the cited coverage referencing Afroyim v. Rusk and expert commentary [3] [2] [1].