What is Melania Trump's current citizenship and immigration status?
Executive summary
Melania Trump is a naturalized U.S. citizen who also retains Slovenian citizenship; multiple recent reports and statements from her former attorney describe her as a dual U.S.–Slovenian national, and the news cycle has focused on a proposed 2025 bill that could force dual nationals to choose a single passport [1] [2]. The Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would require dual citizens to renounce foreign citizenship within 12 months or be “deemed to have voluntarily relinquished United States citizenship,” a provision legal experts say would face constitutional challenges [2] [3].
1. The core fact: naturalized U.S. citizen and Slovenian national
Contemporary reporting identifies Melania Trump as a naturalized American who became a U.S. citizen in 2006 and continues to hold Slovenian citizenship, meaning she is commonly described as a dual citizen of the United States and Slovenia [1] [4]. Newsweek cited Michael Wildes, who formerly represented Melania Trump, explicitly saying she “remains a dual citizen of the U.S. and Slovenia” [1].
2. Why the issue is in the headlines now
The publicity around her status stems from Senator Bernie Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, introduced in December, which would forbid dual or multiple citizenship and compel affected Americans — reportedly about five million people — to choose one nationality within a 12‑month window [2]. That proposed law names no individual but has been framed in coverage as potentially affecting high‑profile dual nationals including Melania Trump and others [2].
3. What the bill would do and why it’s controversial
According to reporting, the bill would require those with foreign citizenship to submit proof that they renounced the foreign nationality to the State Department or else “be deemed to have voluntarily relinquished United States citizenship” — effectively stripping U.S. nationality from noncompliant people [2]. Legal commentators and Melania’s former attorney argue the proposal conflicts with longstanding constitutional and Supreme Court precedents that limit involuntary loss of U.S. citizenship [3] [1].
4. Legal context and constitutional questions
Newsweek’s coverage emphasizes that courts have long held U.S. citizenship cannot be revoked absent a voluntary act, and that dual nationality has legal recognition dating back at least to Perkins v. — a precedent that would complicate attempts to implement an involuntary‑relinquishment mechanism like Moreno’s bill [3]. Melania’s former lawyer warned the bill “defies legal precedent and common practice,” arguing it overlooks mixed‑status families and millions of Americans with multiple nationalities [1].
5. Competing perspectives and political framing
Supporters of the bill, including its sponsor, frame the measure as an issue of national allegiance and security; reporting notes Senator Moreno characterized the change as a matter of loyalty [2]. Opponents — including immigration attorneys cited by Newsweek — present counterarguments stressing constitutional limits, administrative impracticalities and the human cost to families. Coverage flags the political theater: the bill’s impact on prominent figures such as Melania Trump could create tension within Republican ranks and generate publicity for the proposal [3] [2].
6. What available sources do not say
Available sources do not provide official government records or a State Department confirmation of Melania Trump’s current passport holdings; the assertion that she “remains a dual citizen” in the reporting is based on statements from her former counsel and prior biographical profiles rather than newly released official documents [1]. Sources also do not report any formal action taken to revoke or challenge her citizenship as of the cited articles [3] [1] [2].
7. Practical takeaway for readers
As the law stands today, the reporting treats Melania Trump as a naturalized U.S. citizen who also holds Slovenian nationality and would be among those affected if Moreno’s bill became law; however, experts cited in those reports expect heavy constitutional pushback that would likely delay, alter or block the bill’s most extreme effects [1] [3]. Whether any change occurs depends on the bill’s legislative fate and subsequent judicial review — developments not covered in the current set of sources [3] [2].