On December 1, 2025, Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) introduced the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025. The bill would prohibit any person from simultaneously holding U.S. citizenship and citizenship of another country. The major provisions include:
- An effective date 180 days after enactment.
- The requirement that existing dual citizens would have one year to renounce all foreign citizenships or relinquish U.S. citizenship.
- The failure to renounce foreign citizenship within the one-year period would be treated as a voluntary relinquishment of U.S. citizenship under Section 349(a) of the Immigration and 26 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481(a).
- The voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship after enactment would trigger immediate loss of U.S. citizenship.
- The legislation would require the Departments of State and Homeland Security to establish verification procedures and update federal records accordingly.
Senator Moreno’s office states that the bill is intended to ensure “sole and exclusive allegiance” to the United States. The senator, who was born in Colombia and renounced Colombian citizenship at age 18 upon naturalization, has described U.S. citizenship as “an honor and a privilege” that should not be shared with another nation.
Impact of the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025
The bill would affect:
- Naturalized citizens who retain their original citizenship.
- U.S.-born children of foreign-citizen parents who acquire a second nationality at birth.
- Foreign born children of a U.S. citizen and foreign parent who acquire both citizenships at birth.
- Individuals who marry a foreign national and under the laws of that country automatically acquire the foreign spouse’s citizenship.
- Individuals who later naturalize abroad.
Constitutional Concerns Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025
The bill’s central mechanism which provides for automatic loss of U.S. citizenship for inaction to relinquish the other country’s citizenship, directly conflicts with long-standing Supreme Court precedent. In Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967) the Court held 5–4 that Congress has no power under the Constitution to strip a citizen of nationality without the citizen’s voluntary renunciation. Under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a U.S. citizen cannot lose citizenship unless he willingly surrenders it. In Afroyim, the petitioner voted in an Israeli legislative election and the U.S. State Department refused to renew his passport. Refusal was on grounds that the petitioner had lost his citizenship because of a provision in the Nationality Act of 1940 which provided that a United States citizen shall “lose” his citizenship if he votes in a foreign political election.
In Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980) the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed Afroyim. It also made clear that that the government bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an expatriating act (for example, swearing allegiance to another country) was performed voluntarily and with specific intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Mere performance of the act alone is insufficient; intent must be proven.
Under the Moreno bill, inaction after the one-year grace period has elapsed would be a statutorily deemed “voluntary relinquishment” of United States citizenship. This presumption is irreconcilable with Afroyim and Terrazas. It completely eliminates the requirement that the relinquishment of U.S. citizenship be voluntary and done with affirmative intent. The Terrazas case requires the government show “indispensable voluntary assent” beyond the act itself. Moreno’s bill eliminates U.S. citizenship simply by one’s inaction, which is not even an act. The bill also eliminates the burden of proof required of the government. In a nutshell, both voluntariness and affirmative intent are constitutionally required for the loss of U.S. citizenship, and Senator Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 flouts these protections by presuming relinquishment from mere inaction.
Practical and Diplomatic Challenges
The Exclusive Citizenship Act would face various severe obstacles, especially with enforcement. Currently, the U.S. government does not maintain any comprehensive registry of dual citizens. Identification and enforcement would depend on self-reporting or passport-renewal questions or the like. These would create massive administrative burdens and inevitable errors. Furthermore, many countries would refuse to recognize unilateral or U.S.-driven renunciations, much like the U.S. has historically not recognized renunciations of U.S. citizenship that are mandated by foreign law.
Expatriation Tax Consequences
The Exclusive Citizenship Act’s automatic or deemed expatriation would trigger severe U.S. tax penalties for many affected individuals under the “covered expatriate” rules of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Anyone who loses U.S. citizenship with a net worth of $2 million or more, an average annual income-tax liability for a 5-year period exceeding $206,000 (2025 inflation adjusted threshold), or who has not been fully compliant with U.S. tax filings for the prior five years can be classified as a “covered expatriate”. Upon expatriation, they face an immediate mark-to-market exit tax on worldwide assets (deemed sold the day before loss of citizenship) with a potential 23.8 % capital-gains tax on unrealized appreciation; in addition future gifts or bequests from them to U.S. persons become subject to a 40 % transfer tax to be paid by the U.S. recipient of the gift or inheritance.
As discussed in my earlier article, denaturalized citizens can be subject to the expatriation tax regime. Here, the bill treats mere inaction as “voluntary relinquishment.” Similar to those who are denaturalized, many losing U.S. citizenship under this bill should it become law, would be blindsided by life-altering tax consequences without ever intending to expatriate for tax purposes or having the opportunity to plan or restructure assets in advance. Lucky individuals might be able to escape the entire covered expatriate tax regime regardless of net worth or the 5-year income tax liability threshold if they meet special rules under a so-called dual national at birth exception.
UPDATE: Other Issues
I have written a follow-up article since this topic has generated great interest. It addresses various matters including the fate of Social Security benefits if forced to relinquish U.S. citizenship, the dilemma for Native Americans concerned that tribal sovereignty might be considered a foreign allegiance, more on diplomatic issues and the expatriation regime.
Conclusion
While the bill reflects a desire to reinforce undivided national loyalty, its approach risks signaling a broader intolerance toward the complex, multigenerational ties that many Americans maintain with their countries of heritage.
Based on Afroyim, Terrazas, and subsequent lower-court applications, one can expect any enacted version of the Exclusive Citizenship Act to be struck down if it reaches federal court. The bill’s presumption that an individual’s inaction equates to voluntary relinquishment of U.S. citizenship appears incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of citizenship. As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment requires voluntary affirmative, intentional surrender. As written, the bill would face serious challenges upon judicial review.
****** My podcast with John Richardson on this subject is here.
Posted December 8, 2025
Your reliable source of US international tax information –
Forbes Contributor, US International Tax
Named by Forbes, Top 100 Must-Follow Tax Twitter Accounts @VLJeker
Named by Bloomberg, Tax Professionals to Follow on LinkedIn
Subscribe to Virginia – US Tax Talk to receive my weekly US tax blog posts in your inbox. My blog specializes in foreign and US international tax issues.
You can access my papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at https://ssrn.com/author=2779920
First published on Forbes December 3, 2025
Virginia - US TAX TALK 