Which countries most frequently provide dual citizenship to U.S. lawmakers and how were they acquired?
Executive summary
Existing reporting does not provide a country-by-country list of which foreign nationalities are most commonly held by U.S. lawmakers; available sources note a handful of examples (Thailand, Ukraine, Colombia, Ireland/UK) and focus mainly on new Republican proposals to restrict or ban dual citizenship, not comprehensive statistics [1] [2] [3] [4]. The political fight centers on Senator Bernie Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, which would force Americans to choose one nationality and give dual citizens one year to renounce a foreign citizenship or be deemed to have relinquished U.S. citizenship [4] [2].
1. Which countries show up in news accounts of U.S. lawmakers with dual citizenship
Reporting highlights individual cases rather than aggregate counts. Examples cited in coverage: Sen. Bernie Moreno was born in Colombia and renounced Colombian citizenship [2]; Sen. Tammy Duckworth has U.S.-Thailand ties reported in background pieces about dual citizenship among officials [1]; Rep. Victoria Spartz is noted as born in Ukraine [1]; another professor case mentions automatic UK/Republic of Ireland citizenship by birth in Northern Ireland [3]. These mentions show the snippets of nationalities that enter the debate, but no source offers a ranked list or frequency counts [1] [2] [3].
2. How were those foreign citizenships acquired, according to reporting
The available articles describe common acquisition paths in individual examples: birth abroad or birthright citizenship (automatic citizenship in Northern Ireland yielding UK and Irish ties) and foreign birth/naturalization before U.S. naturalization (Moreno born in Colombia, later renounced; others immigrated then naturalized) [3] [2]. News pieces frame acquisition as either jus soli/jus sanguinis at birth (automatic citizenship in another state) or later naturalization; none of the provided sources supply systematic data on other mechanisms such as descent-based citizenship claims or investment/naturalization routes [2] [3] [1].
3. What the new legislation would change and how reporting frames the legal mechanics
Senator Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would require U.S. citizens to hold only U.S. citizenship, forcing a choice within one year: formally renounce foreign citizenship to keep U.S. status or notify DHS and renounce U.S. citizenship, with noncompliance treated as deemed relinquishment [4] [2]. Coverage flags constitutional and practical obstacles: current U.S. law and constitutional protections require voluntariness and intent to lose citizenship, and the government lacks a comprehensive registry of dual citizens—enforcement would rely on self-reporting and administrative mechanisms that sources say would create burdens and likely errors [5] [4].
4. Political context and motivations surfaced in coverage
Reporting frames the push as a Republican initiative arguing “divided loyalties” and conflicts of interest in public office, with advocates asking for disclosure or bans on dual citizens serving in Congress; critics, including some triple citizens quoted, warn it would exclude valuable perspectives and create administrative chaos [1] [6] [3]. Moreno’s office explicitly invokes sole allegiance language and political messaging about patriotism; outlets place the bill within broader GOP moves to tighten immigration and citizenship rules [4] [7].
5. What the sources do not provide — key gaps to note
None of the provided articles give comprehensive, verifiable counts of how many U.S. lawmakers hold foreign citizenships, nor do they list which foreign nationalities are most frequent among members of Congress (available sources do not mention a ranked country list) [1]. The reporting focuses on anecdotes, legislative proposals, and political framing rather than compiled data on acquisition methods across the entire cohort of officeholders [1] [6].
6. Competing viewpoints and legal uncertainty
Proponents argue the law is about loyalty and preventing conflicts; critics and legal analysts point to constitutional protections against involuntary loss of citizenship and practical enforcement problems, including tax consequences for those who might be deemed expatriated—coverage suggests the bill would face legal and administrative challenges if pursued [5] [4] [8]. Some outlets also flagged potential unintended consequences, such as affecting high-profile dual nationals in the First Family [9].
Limitations: reporting in these sources is current to the bill’s introduction and focuses on political debate and individual examples rather than empirical surveys. For an authoritative list of which foreign citizenships U.S. lawmakers most frequently hold and the exact legal route for each, further data collection or official disclosures would be required; available sources do not provide that dataset [1] [4].