How does U.S. law address dual citizenship for members of Congress?
Executive summary
Current U.S. law allows dual citizenship; Senator Bernie Moreno’s new Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would ban it and give dual citizens one year to renounce a foreign nationality or be “deemed” to have relinquished U.S. citizenship [1] [2]. Legal commentators and reporting note the proposal contradicts Supreme Court precedent that bars involuntary loss of citizenship (Afroyim v. Rusk) and would likely face constitutional challenge [3] [2] [4].
1. What the bill would actually do: a one‑year choice or automatic expatriation
Moreno’s text declares that no one “may be a citizen or national of the U.S. while simultaneously possessing any foreign citizenship,” requires the State Department to set up declaration and verification procedures, and would give current dual citizens one year to renounce one citizenship or be “deemed to have voluntarily relinquished United States citizenship,” with noncompliant people to be treated as aliens for immigration purposes [1] [2] [5].
2. How that clashes with existing legal precedent and practice
Multiple news outlets and legal analysts point to long‑standing Supreme Court rulings protecting against involuntary loss of nationality — most notably Afroyim v. Rusk — as a direct legal obstacle to a law that presumes relinquishment from inaction. Commentators argue Moreno’s scheme to “deem” expatriation would likely violate constitutional limits on Congress’s power to strip citizenship without voluntary, affirmative renunciation [3] [2] [4].
3. Political momentum and practical obstacles
The bill is newly introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee; reporting and think‑tank commentary indicate it faces a lengthy, uncertain path and is considered unlikely to pass quickly — some analyses put enactment odds low — but the measure has energized a broader GOP push to tighten rules on dual nationality among public officials [1] [6] [7]. Sponsors and supporters frame it as closing “divided allegiance” gaps; opponents flag constitutional and administrative burdens, including building a database of dual citizens [8] [9].
4. What enforcement would look like — big administrative changes
The bill tasks the secretary of State with recordkeeping, verification and coordination with the Attorney General and DHS to mark deemed‑renunciants as aliens in federal systems, which reporters say would require a new registry and substantial interagency work — a practical and privacy‑policy flashpoint [2] [8] [10].
5. Who could be affected — scope and uncertainty
Because the U.S. does not maintain a comprehensive public registry of dual citizens, news coverage stresses uncertainty about how many people would be swept up; the text would impact naturalized citizens, people who acquired foreign nationality by marriage or descent, and public figures with known dual status [9] [5]. Observers also note potential personal hardships tied to family ties, property or business abroad if people are forced to pick one nationality [4].
6. Constitutional and litigation prospects
Legal sources cited in reporting uniformly predict constitutional challenges if the bill became law, given Supreme Court decisions described as treating dual citizenship as “status long recognized” and protective of voluntariness in renunciation [2] [9]. Some writers say the bill’s automatic or deemed expatriation mechanism “flouts” those protections and would likely be litigated up to the Supreme Court [3] [4].
7. Competing framings: national‑security vs. rights and practicality
Supporters frame the measure as ensuring undivided allegiance and removing conflicts of interest for officials; critics frame it as an overreach that erodes long‑settled citizenship doctrine and will create administrative and human costs. Coverage ranges from policy‑oriented skepticism to outright alarm about the bill’s constitutional fit, reflecting a partisan split in proposed solutions to “dual loyalty” concerns [1] [7] [3].
8. What reporting does not settle
Available sources do not mention detailed legislative vote counts, specific scoring from the Congressional Budget Office, or an authoritative estimate of how many U.S. citizens hold dual nationality — gaps reporters repeatedly flag [9] [6]. Sources also do not provide final judicial rulings on this exact statutory language because the bill is new and untested in court [3] [2].
Bottom line: Moreno’s bill would upend the current U.S. practice that permits dual citizenship and replace it with a one‑year renunciation requirement and administrative apparatus; multiple outlets and legal analysts say it likely conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and would face robust litigation and political obstacles if it advances [1] [3] [2].