Can a member of Congress hold dual citizenship and still take the oath of office?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Under current U.S. law, dual citizenship is permitted and holding a second nationality does not by itself prevent a member of Congress from taking the oath of office; the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 is a proposed bill that would try to end dual citizenship but has not become law and faces constitutional and logistical hurdles (see [3], [7], p1_s8). Senator Bernie Moreno introduced the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 to require sole U.S. allegiance and force dual citizens to choose within a year or be “deemed to have voluntarily relinquished United States citizenship” [1] [2].
1. Legal reality now: dual citizens can serve in Congress
Current reporting and legal commentary make clear that, as of these sources, dual citizenship remains legal in the United States and nothing in law today automatically bars a dual national from being sworn into Congress; analysts note the proposed bill has not been enacted and “does not change current law” [3]. Multiple outlets describe the Moreno bill as a proposal—“just a bill” at this stage—subject to committee review and legal challenge [4] [3].
2. What the Exclusive Citizenship Act would do if enacted
Moreno’s bill, the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, would declare that U.S. citizens “must have sole and exclusive allegiance to the United States,” require dual citizens to renounce one citizenship within a year, and label failure to act as a voluntary relinquishment of U.S. citizenship [1] [2] [5]. Coverage summarizes that the measure would also prevent future acquisition of foreign nationality without losing U.S. citizenship, and would put the burden on citizens to notify State or DHS of their choice [6] [5].
3. Constitutional and court precedents that matter
News analysis highlights a major legal obstacle the bill would face: longstanding Supreme Court precedent requires voluntariness to strip citizenship—courts have long held Congress cannot remove citizenship absent the person’s voluntary intent—pointing to Afroyim v. Rusk and subsequent decisions as a barrier to automatic expatriation [7] [8]. Several outlets explicitly predict the bill would be challenged as unconstitutional if advanced [7] [8].
4. Practical and political hurdles the bill faces
Observers and legal commentators note logistical and political problems: creating systems to identify and process millions of dual nationals would be unprecedented, and analysts give low odds that the sweeping proposal will pass—one advisory view places enactment probability very low and recommends affected people focus on tax compliance rather than panic [3] [8] [4]. The bill’s referral to committee signals a lengthy legislative process [5].
5. Stakes and who would be affected
Reporting cites estimates ranging into the millions for Americans who also hold another nationality and lists high-profile individuals who could be affected if the bill passed—examples raised in coverage include Melania Trump and private-sector figures with multiple citizenships [6] [8]. Advocates for the bill frame the change as eliminating “divided loyalties,” while opponents call it unconstitutional and warn of destabilizing millions of lives [9] [6].
6. Political context and competing motives
The bill’s sponsors frame the proposal as restoring exclusive allegiance and reinforcing the oath of naturalization; opponents view it as politically motivated and legally suspect. Coverage shows multiple members of Congress are pursuing related measures—such as a proposed census question on dual citizenship—indicating a broader legislative push on the topic with nationalist and security framing [10] [1].
7. What this means for a Congress member today
Based on current reporting, a person who is a U.S. citizen and also holds foreign citizenship can be sworn into Congress today; only a change in law that survives constitutional scrutiny — not yet enacted — could alter that fact [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention any current statutory disqualification specifically barring dual nationals from taking the oath of office; the Exclusive Citizenship Act, while explicit in intent, is a pending proposal and not a present legal barrier [3] [1].
Limitations: my account relies only on the provided reporting; I do not assert developments beyond these sources and note they consistently treat the Exclusive Citizenship Act as a proposed, controversial change with constitutional and practical obstacles [7] [8] [3].