Which senators co-sponsored or publicly supported S.3283 and what statements did they make about dual citizenship?
Executive summary
Senator Bernie Moreno (R‑Ohio) is the sole Senate sponsor listed for S.3283, the "Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025," and the legislative record and public trackers show no Senate co‑sponsors (Congress.gov; GovTrack) [1] [2]. Reporting and advocacy responses document Moreno’s public statements about dual citizenship and a later clarification or “backtrack” about the bill’s scope, while no other senators are recorded as publicly supporting the measure in the provided sources [3] [4].
1. Sponsor and formal cosponsor status: a one‑senator bill
The official bill text and multiple legislative trackers list Senator Bernie Moreno as the introducer of S.3283 and explicitly record “no cosponsors” for the Senate filing, meaning no other senator has been added as a formal co‑sponsor on the Senate version to date (Congress.gov; GovTrack; LegiScan) [1] [5] [6]. GovTrack and Congress.gov both show the bill was read and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but they record zero Senate co‑sponsors on the public record [5] [2].
2. What Moreno said when he introduced the bill
When introducing S.3283, Moreno framed the proposal around “sole and exclusive allegiance” and the bill text and some reporting capture rhetoric that rejects dual citizenship as inconsistent with undivided national loyalty; a conservative blog quoted a forceful line—“Being an American citizen is an honor and a privilege—and if you want to be an American, it’s all or nothing”—attributed to the bill’s framing (GovTrack; America Josh) [7] [4]. The bill’s text requires individuals who hold foreign citizenship to choose within a year or be deemed to have relinquished U.S. citizenship, a substantive change Moreno advanced in the Senate filing (GovTrack; GovTrack text) [7].
3. Moreno’s later qualification and public “backtrack”
Local reporting captured Moreno walking back or narrowing his public explanation: on a podcast he characterized the proposal as applying only to future naturalized citizens, a claim that local reporters flagged as inconsistent with the bill’s actual statutory language and with his prior statements about current dual citizens [3]. The LimaOhio report noted that the bill’s text contains retroactive provisions that would, as written, require current dual citizens to choose within one year—contradicting Moreno’s podcast characterization—illustrating a gap between Moreno’s later public remarks and the bill manuscript [3].
4. Public reactions and counterstatements about dual citizenship
Advocacy groups and political opponents responded quickly: Democrats Abroad issued a formal condemnation arguing the bill is unconstitutional and based on a “false and dangerous narrative” about dual citizens, and they cited Supreme Court precedent limiting Congress’s ability to strip citizenship by statute [8]. Immigration and policy trackers described the bill as eliminating the possibility of dual citizenship and noted the lack of Senate cosponsors, framing the measure as politically marginal in the Senate at the time of reporting (National Immigration Forum; Quiver; LegiScan) [9] [10] [11].
5. Who publicly supported S.3283 in the Senate?
In the available reporting and the congressional record provided, no other senators are recorded as having co‑sponsored or publicly endorsed S.3283; coverage repeatedly notes the bill’s single‑sponsor status and absence of cosponsors, and independent trackers and local coverage similarly report zero Senate co‑sponsors and no identified Senate supporters beyond Moreno (Congress.gov; GovTrack; National Immigration Forum; LimaOhio) [2] [5] [9] [3]. If other senators made private or later public supportive remarks, those statements are not documented in the supplied sources and therefore cannot be verified here.
6. Reading the political signals and motives
The combination of a lone sponsor, rapid pushback from diaspora and immigrant advocacy groups, and Moreno’s subsequent public narrowing of the bill’s scope suggests both a political signaling motive and sensitivity to constitutional and PR risk: the bill’s text asserts a retroactive prohibition on multiple citizenships and imposes administrative enforcement duties on State and Homeland Security agencies, but advocacy groups point to likely legal challenges under Supreme Court precedents about involuntary loss of citizenship [7] [8]. Coverage from policy trackers and commentators treats the measure as unlikely to advance without broader Senate buy‑in, and notes that Moreno’s personal immigrant background and statements about renouncing Colombian citizenship were part of the public narrative around the bill [9] [3].