Americans With Dual Passports Warned: Senator's New Bill Could Strip Key Benefits Overnight

A Republican senator has introduced legislation that would force millions of Americans holding dual citizenship to make an impossible choice: give up their foreign passport or lose their US nationality.

Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio unveiled the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 last week, declaring that American citizenship demands 'sole and exclusive allegiance.'

The bill would give existing dual nationals just one year to renounce their foreign citizenship or formally surrender their US passport. Those who fail to comply would be treated as aliens under immigration law.

The proposal has sparked immediate backlash from constitutional scholars and immigrant communities, with critics pointing out it could even affect First Lady Melania Trump and her son Barron, both reported to hold Slovenian citizenship.

What the Exclusive Citizenship Act Would Actually Do

The four-page bill makes it unlawful to hold US citizenship while possessing any foreign nationality. Anyone who acquires foreign citizenship after the law takes effect would automatically lose their American nationality.

Existing dual citizens would face a 365-day deadline to submit either a renunciation of their foreign citizenship to the State Department or a formal renunciation of US citizenship to the Department of Homeland Security. The substantive prohibition would kick in 180 days after enactment.

'If you want to be an American, it's all or nothing,' Moreno said in his press release. The naturalised citizen, who previously renounced his Colombian nationality, framed the measure as protecting national security interests.

Constitutional Obstacles And Legal Precedent

Legal scholars say the bill collides with decades of Supreme Court precedent that sharply limits Congress's power to strip citizenship. In Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against involuntary revocation of citizenship; only voluntary renunciation suffices.

Later, Vance v. Terrazas (1980) clarified that the government must prove an individual intended to relinquish U.S. nationality; an expatriating act alone is not conclusive. Taken together, those decisions create a high bar for any statute that purports to automatically deprive persons of citizenship merely for holding a foreign passport.

Constitutional litigators say Moreno's text, which would deem non-compliance an act of 'voluntary relinquishment,' appears designed to invite a constitutional test.

In practice, courts have required proof of intent to abandon US nationality; since 1990, the State Department has also applied an administrative presumption that many acts of foreign affiliation, by themselves, do not show intent to relinquish citizenship.

Legal experts predict swift litigation and likely temporary injunctions should the bill pass. The collateral impact on passports, Social Security, tax status, and domestic rights would be extensive while litigation proceeds.

Political Fallout and the Melania Trump Problem

The proposal has created uncomfortable optics for the Republican Party. Melania Trump and her son Barron reportedly hold both American and Slovenian citizenship, meaning the bill's one-year window would force the president's own family into a public choice.

Immigrant advocates warn the measure disproportionately targets naturalised Americans who maintain foreign passports for family connections, property ownership, or travel purposes. Critics argue it ignores the realities of global families, risks creating statelessness where foreign nations do not readily accept renunciations, and would require extensive surveillance to verify compliance.

The bill has been introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. If the measure proceeds to markup and floor votes, expect a fierce fight: constitutional law professors, civil-liberties organisations, and foreign-born communities plan rapid legal and political pushback, while some Republican hardliners may hail the proposal as bold reform.

Given the Supreme Court precedent and the practical difficulties of enforcing mass renunciations, the bill's chances of surviving judicial review are low.