Do politicians in the House of Representatives or Senate with dual citizenship have to disclose their citizenship under the Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act?
Executive summary
The Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act (H.R.7484) is a congressional bill that, as drafted, would require Members of Congress who are foreign nationals to file a statement of their status as a foreign national but does not, in its text as reported, automatically bar service for dual citizens; penalties for failing to file are limited and enforcement is through congressional ethics committees [1]. Reporting shows this measure and related bills have been introduced and debated, but the available sources do not indicate the legislation has become law, so it is not correct to say there is currently a statutory disclosure requirement in force based solely on these bills [2] [3].
1. What the Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act would require
The text of H.R.7484 explicitly directs that Members of Congress who are "foreign nationals" must file a statement of their status as a foreign national, defining the term by reference to the Immigration and Nationality Act, and framing the obligation as a required filing "by" the Member for congressional records [1]. The bill, therefore, is a disclosure mandate — it instructs Members to report foreign-national status — rather than a substantive bar that revokes eligibility or automatically removes someone from office for holding another citizenship [1].
2. Who counts as a Member and how noncompliance would be handled
H.R.7484 defines "Member of Congress" to include Senators, Representatives, Delegates and the Resident Commissioner, and designates the appropriate congressional ethics committees to receive and assess statements; those committees may levy a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for failure to file or for a defective statement in addition to other applicable House or Senate rules penalties [1]. The committee-driven enforcement mechanism underlines that compliance would be policed internally by each chamber's ethics process rather than by an external executive agency [1].
3. Nearby proposals and how they differ
Congress has seen multiple, overlapping proposals on the subject: related bills such as the Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act would require candidates for federal office to disclose any non-U.S. citizenship on campaign or candidacy filings and apply at the candidacy stage rather than only to sitting Members [4] [5]. Summaries and advocacy materials emphasize that these companion measures are framed as transparency or campaign-disclosure reforms, and some versions explicitly would require candidate statements of other-country citizenships in Federal Election Commission or candidacy forms [4] [5].
4. Political framing, stated motives and pushback
Supporters justify disclosure on transparency and conflict-of-interest grounds, arguing voters deserve notice if an officeholder holds another nationality, while opponents warn such measures can be motivated by xenophobia and may stigmatize dual citizens without proving disloyalty; both lines of argument are present in congressional summaries and critiques circulating in press coverage [6]. Prominent Republican sponsors have publicly argued some dual citizens should renounce foreign citizenship, and outlets such as Newsweek reported critics who view these bills as part of a broader political push against dual nationality and an "America First" narrative [7] [8].
5. What is actually true today and reporting limits
Public reporting and the congressional text confirm these are proposed laws — introduced, debated and summarized on official government sites — but the sources do not show H.R.7484 or the related bills have been enacted into law; previous reporting notes that Members have not historically been required to disclose foreign citizenship, and that no official roster of dual citizens in Congress exists because such disclosures have not been mandatory [9] [2]. Therefore, while the Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act would impose a disclosure obligation on sitting Senators and Representatives if enacted, the current state of the sources indicates it remains a proposal rather than an existing statutory duty [3] [2].