WASHINGTON – Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said he will introduce the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, a bill that would require Americans who hold foreign citizenship to choose between the United States and the other country.
The proposal would make obtaining a new foreign citizenship after the law takes effect a basis for losing U.S. citizenship and would direct the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to create systems to track and enforce the change, according to bill text released by Moreno’s office and a Fox News report. The measure thrusts questions of constitutional authority, administrative capacity and international relations into an active congressional debate over citizenship and national security.
The proposal would alter long-standing practice allowing dual nationality and place new administrative and legal burdens on federal agencies. Supporters say the change would prevent divided loyalties and protect national interests, while critics warn of logistical difficulties, diplomatic friction and likely litigation. The bill and the policy questions it raises are now part of broader congressional oversight of citizenship and immigration issues, which readers can follow in our Congress Coverage.
Background
Current U.S. law and practice generally permit dual citizenship. The State Department recognizes that many Americans hold more than one nationality and issues Certificates of Loss of Nationality when citizens voluntarily renounce U.S. citizenship. Congress has authority over naturalization and immigration, but the scope of its power to strip or condition citizenship has been shaped by Supreme Court decisions.
In the 1950s and 1960s the high court issued conflicting rulings on when citizenship could be lost for actions taken abroad. The 1958 decision Perez v. Brownell allowed greater congressional power to divest citizenship in some circumstances, but that approach was narrowed by the court in 1967 in Afroyim v. Rusk, which held that the government may not revoke citizenship without the citizen’s assent. Those precedents are likely to feature in any legal challenge to a statute that treats inaction as relinquishment.
Separately, Congress and state governments have debated related topics such as disclosure of foreign allegiances for public officials, and the administration has not publicly endorsed a wholesale change to dual citizenship policy. Any new law would interact with international norms, because some countries restrict renunciation procedures or penalize citizens who take other nationalities.
Details From Officials and Records
Key provisions in the bill text released by Moreno’s office include:
- Giving current dual nationals one year after enactment to either renounce their foreign citizenship with the foreign government and inform the State Department, or to notify DHS of their intent to renounce U.S. citizenship.
- Automatically treating people who fail to comply within the one-year window as having relinquished U.S. citizenship.
- Directing the State Department and DHS to build databases and issue rules to track dual citizenship and enforce the law.
- Requiring DHS and the attorney general to ensure that people who lose U.S. citizenship are recorded in federal systems and treated as noncitizens for immigration purposes.
The bill text would also make acquisition of a new foreign citizenship after enactment a trigger for the loss of U.S. citizenship. It is not uncommon for bills to require rulemaking to define implementation details; here, that step would fall mainly to the State Department, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and DHS components that maintain travel and immigration records.
Officials who enforce immigration and nationality law point out practical hurdles. The State Department issues Certificates of Loss of Nationality when a person voluntarily renounces, but many foreign governments require documentation, waiting periods, or do not permit renunciation without proof of another nationality. Determining whether a person has actually renounced a foreign citizenship or has merely failed to notify U.S. authorities would raise complex fact-finding and privacy issues.
Reactions and Next Steps
Supporters, including Moreno in his public statement, frame exclusive allegiance as central to national cohesion and security, arguing lawmakers have a duty to prevent conflicts of interest among officials and to protect classified information. They say a statutory requirement would create a clear standard for public servants and others in sensitive roles.
Opponents say the bill would create administrative headaches, risk stripping citizenship without meaningful consent and harm ordinary Americans with family or business ties overseas. Civil liberties groups and some legal scholars contend that treating failure to take affirmative steps as automatic relinquishment will run into constitutional barriers and likely invite litigation.
Legal experts note that the core question in lawsuits would be whether Congress may, by statute, declare that silence or failure to follow a process equals loss of citizenship. Case law starting with Perez and then Afroyim suggests courts will weigh the voluntariness of any relinquishing act. Rogers v. Bellei, a 1971 decision, also remains relevant because the court has in certain contexts recognized congressional authority to impose conditions on statutory grants of nationality, though that case applies in limited circumstances.
If Moreno formally files the bill, it would be assigned to Senate committee or committees for hearings, where witnesses from the State Department, DHS, constitutional scholars and foreign policy experts would likely testify. Passage would require approval in both chambers and the president’s signature. Even if enacted, implementing regulations and database builds would take time and would involve interagency rulemaking, budget requests and oversight hearings.
Analysis
The proposal highlights tensions among governance, national security and individual rights. Requiring exclusive allegiance seeks to reduce perceived conflicts of interest and to reinforce norms of trust in government institutions. For lawmakers focused on accountability and national security, that argument is straightforward: a single citizenship simplifies background checks, security clearances and diplomatic responsibilities.
At the same time, the bill shifts significant operational responsibility to the State Department, DHS and the Justice Department. Building reliable tracking systems, adjudicating individual cases and coordinating with foreign governments would impose fiscal costs and logistical complexity at a time when agencies are already stretched. Errors could lead to wrongful loss of citizenship, detention at the border or complications for U.S. passport holders abroad.
There are also diplomatic and civil liberties tradeoffs. Forcing citizens to renounce foreign nationality could strain relations with countries that restrict renunciation or that view expatriation unfavorably. It could also create statelessness risks in edge cases, which international law generally seeks to avoid. Courts historically have been a central arena for resolving disputes over congressional authority in the area of nationality, so extensive litigation is likely if the measure advances.
For Congress, the policy choice involves weighing claims of national security and institutional trust against practical enforcement limits and the constitutional protections that guard citizenship. Oversight hearings and careful cost and legal analysis would be necessary to assess whether the intended gains in security and clarity outweigh the administrative burdens and potential civil rights costs.
