What would the Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act require, and which members have sponsored or opposed it?
Executive summary
The Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act family of proposals would force members of Congress or candidates for federal office who hold citizenship in another country to disclose that status to ethics committees or on campaign filings and would authorize penalties for noncompliance; versions have been introduced in multiple sessions by Republicans including Tim Burchett and Thomas Massie (and allied officeholders) and have drawn organized criticism from advocacy groups who say the measures stigmatize bicultural Americans [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the core bill text would require
One version titled the Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act introduced in the 118th Congress requires “Members of Congress who are foreign nationals to file a statement with the appropriate congressional ethics committee describing their status as a foreign national,” and authorizes the ethics committees to impose fines up to $2,500 for non‑compliance, with definitions and enforcement language spelled out in the bill text [2] [1]. A related set of proposals—sometimes called the Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act in other filings—amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to require that the statement a candidate files to designate a principal campaign committee must “include information with respect to whether the candidate is a citizen of any country other than the United States” and identify that country when applicable [3] [5].
2. Which members sponsored the measures
The 118th Congress House bill H.R. 7484 was introduced by Representative Tim Burchett (R‑TN), with the bill text and official government summary showing Burchett as the proponent [1] [6]. Separate but substantively similar measures using the “Dual Loyalty” name were announced by Representative Thomas Massie (R‑KY) in the 119th Congress and publicly described in his press release, and other Republican members including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Clay Higgins are publicly named by advocacy groups as co‑introducers or supporters of similar disclosure language [7] [4]. GovTrack and related government pages show recurring introductions of similar text in multiple sessions and list sponsors on the respective bill pages, reflecting a pattern of Republican sponsorship for these proposals [8] [9].
3. Who has opposed or criticized the bills—and why
Organized opposition has come from civil‑rights and Latino advocacy groups such as Voto Latino, which framed the Dual Loyalty/Disclosure proposals as stigmatizing bicultural Americans and undermining representation, and publicly condemned the bills and their sponsors as injecting suspicion and xenophobia into the democratic process [4]. Reporting and advocacy material also point to broader pushback that dual‑citizen status does not legally disqualify someone from public office and is often benign or inherited, an argument critics use to say the laws could have chilling effects on immigrant communities seeking office [4] [5].
4. How the proposals differ in scope and enforcement
The Burchett H.R. 7484 text focuses on sitting Members of Congress who are “foreign nationals,” defines enforcement mechanisms through congressional ethics committees, and specifies applicability from the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress forward [1] [2]. The Massie/Rosendale family of bills instead targets candidates’ campaign filings under FECA by adding a required line to identify non‑U.S. citizenship, a disclosure that would take effect on campaign committees’ official paperwork rather than through internal ethics committee filings [3] [5] [10]. These procedural distinctions determine whether the obligation hits officeholders, candidates, or both, and which institution (ethics committees versus campaign filing systems) enforces compliance [1] [3].
5. Political context, hidden agendas and practical effects
The proposals have run in partisan lanes: tracking sites label at least one version as a partisan Republican bill, and sponsors’ public comments—cited by critics—have included arguments that dual citizens should renounce foreign nationality before serving, signaling a political aim to spotlight foreign ties among opponents [11] [4]. Supporters argue disclosure enhances transparency, while opponents say it needles identity politics and could discourage naturalized or bicultural Americans from running; the bills’ narrow penalties (a $2,500 fine in the Burchett text) suggest the measure is more about public naming and political pressure than heavy civil sanctions [2] [1] [4].