How does U.S. law address eligibility for Congress if a member has dual citizenship?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Current U.S. law does not bar members of Congress from holding dual citizenship; several recent bills would change that but are proposals, not law (see Senator Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 and related House proposals) [1] [2]. The Moreno bill would make it unlawful to hold U.S. citizenship while also holding foreign citizenship and would force current dual citizens to choose within a year or be deemed to have relinquished U.S. citizenship; advocates and lawyers warn it would face constitutional and practical challenges, including conflict with Supreme Court precedent [3] [4] [5].
1. How the law stands today: Congress allows dual citizens
Current federal practice and reporting show that holding dual citizenship does not by itself disqualify someone from serving in Congress. News outlets and congressional press releases describe proposals aimed at limiting dual citizenship, which implies the status quo permits it; for example, Moreno’s bill is presented as a change to existing law rather than a clarification of an existing ban [3] [1]. Several news reports note members and candidates with foreign citizenship histories and frame the legislation as new restrictions, not as enforcement of an extant prohibition [2] [4].
2. The Moreno bill: what it would do
Sen. Bernie Moreno’s “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” would declare that no one may be a U.S. citizen while simultaneously possessing any foreign citizenship, require the Secretary of State to create verification procedures, and give current dual citizens one year after enactment to renounce a foreign citizenship or submit a declaration — otherwise they would be “deemed to have voluntarily relinquished” U.S. citizenship and be treated as aliens under immigration law [3] [1] [4]. The bill’s text and multiple news summaries emphasize its sweeping reach and the creation of federal recordkeeping and coordination among State, Justice and Homeland Security [1] [4].
3. Legal and constitutional fault lines
Legal analysts and coverage point out a major constitutional obstacle: the Supreme Court’s decision in Afroyim v. Rusk held Congress cannot strip U.S. citizenship without voluntary renunciation, and commentators say the Moreno bill’s mechanism of “deemed” relinquishment would likely conflict with that precedent [5] [6]. Coverage from law-focused outlets and immigration lawyers warns the bill’s automatic expatriation provisions raise due‑process and voluntariness concerns that would invite court challenges if the measure progressed [5] [7].
4. Politics driving the proposals
Reporting frames these bills as part of a broader Republican push to restrict dual citizenship among public officials and increase disclosure: Representative Thomas Massie’s Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act and Rep. Abe Hamadeh’s proposal to add a dual‑citizenship question to the census illustrate a multi‑pronged effort to spotlight “divided allegiances” and compel renunciations or disclosures [2] [8]. Advocates describe national‑security and loyalty arguments; critics and legal scholars characterize the effort as politically motivated and likely to encounter low legislative probability and high legal costs [9] [2].
5. Practical consequences if enacted
If such legislation became law as described, dual citizens — including people who acquired another nationality by birth, marriage or descent — could be forced to make life‑altering choices about residence, property, family ties and taxes; tax advisories warn that forced or de facto expatriation can trigger “covered expatriate” rules and exit‑tax consequences under the Internal Revenue Code [10] [5]. Immigration and legal‑practice sources emphasize that some foreign states may not recognize a unilateral U.S. declaration of renunciation, complicating the supposed one‑year fix for many affected persons [10] [5].
6. What to watch next
All sources stress that Moreno’s bill is at the introduction stage and has been referred to committee; it remains a proposal, not a change in law, and experts put passage probabilities low absent major shifts in the legislative calendar [3] [9]. Follow official text and committee action on Congress.gov and credible reporting for amendments, constitutional analysis, and court challenges; several outlets advise that the bill’s implementation language (records, verification, treatment under immigration law) will determine both legal vulnerability and real‑world impact [1] [4].
Limitations: available sources do not mention any enacted statute currently barring dual citizens from serving in Congress; sources only cover the proposed bills, their text, and legal commentary (not court rulings on a specific new law) [3] [5].