What administrative steps would State and DHS have to take to implement a law banning dual citizenship, according to S.3283’s text?
Executive summary
The Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 (S.3283) would force a series of concrete administrative actions by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): publish implementing regulations and notices within the statute’s timelines, accept and record renunciations, update passport and immigration systems, and coordinate with the Attorney General to reclassify affected persons as aliens under immigration law [1] [2]. The bill also sets clear clocks — an effective date 180 days after enactment and a one‑year window for existing dual citizens to choose — but those statutory commands would collide with established Supreme Court doctrine and invite litigation, according to critics [3] [4] [5].
1. The statutory clocks that drive implementation
S.3283 specifies that the prohibition on dual citizenship “will take effect 180 days after the bill is enacted,” and directs federal agencies to publish implementing regulations and notifications on a similar 180‑day schedule, creating a compressed timetable for regulatory work and public notice [3] [1]. For people already holding dual citizenship at enactment, the statute gives a one‑year deadline to submit either a written renunciation of foreign citizenship to the Secretary of State or a written renunciation of U.S. citizenship to the Secretary of Homeland Security, effectively imposing a statutory choice period [6] [4].
2. Publishing regulations and Federal Register notices — State’s first administrative duty
The bill explicitly tasks the State Department with taking regulatory and notification steps within the 180‑day window, which in practice means drafting regulatory text, preparing Federal Register notices, and issuing consular guidance on how to accept and verify renunciations of foreign citizenship and procedures for attaching evidence of relinquishment to passport files [1] [7]. The text’s direction to the Secretary of State to receive written renunciations of foreign citizenship implies the Department would need forms, authentication standards, and intergovernmental protocols with foreign states, although the bill text does not lay out operational minutiae [6] [7].
3. DHS duties: accepting renunciations of U.S. citizenship and updating immigration classification
Under the bill, DHS is the recipient of any written renunciation of U.S. citizenship and must “coordinate with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that any individual deemed to have relinquished citizenship under this Act is appropriately recorded in Federal systems and treated as an alien for purposes of the immigration laws,” a requirement that places on DHS the technical job of flagging, reclassifying, and enforcing non‑citizen status in immigration databases and benefit systems [2] [3]. The statute’s language that failure to comply will be “deemed to have voluntarily relinquished United States citizenship for purposes of section 349(a)” creates a legal trigger DHS would have to operationalize in its records and adjudications [2].
4. Interagency coordination and casework implications
The bill contemplates coordination between State, DHS, and the Attorney General to update federal systems and treat people as aliens — an administrative choreography that would require data‑sharing agreements, changes to passport issuance and revocation procedures, Social Security or benefits flagging, and possibly new adjudicative guidance for immigration officers and consular officials; the statute orders the coordination but does not prescribe specific system changes [2] [1]. Practical implementation would therefore hinge on executive guidance and rulemaking by those agencies within the statutory timeline, per the bill text [1].
5. Automatic triggers and recordkeeping duties
S.3283 not only creates a choice window for existing dual citizens but also declares that acquiring foreign citizenship after the effective date will be treated as a relinquishment of U.S. citizenship, an automatic legal consequence that would demand proactive monitoring and evidentiary standards from State and DHS if those agencies are to determine when a person has “acquired” foreign status and thus lost U.S. citizenship [4] [3]. The bill’s requirement that relinquishments be “appropriately recorded in Federal systems” places a recordkeeping obligation on agencies even where the statute treats some outcomes as automatic [2].
6. Legal and political headwinds that shape administrative reality
While S.3283 lays out administrative steps, major legal challenges loom: critics point to Supreme Court precedents holding that loss of U.S. citizenship requires voluntary relinquishment and contend Congress cannot simply revoke citizenship by statute; organizations and legal analysts predict immediate constitutional litigation that would affect whether and how agencies proceed with implementation [5] [4]. The text’s commands to State and DHS are unambiguous, but the departments’ willingness to incur the political, diplomatic and litigation risk of implementing an untested statutory construct would be a decisive practical constraint noted in reporting [5] [8].