One email from a tribal member sparked today’s article.
A Native American reader of my recent Forbes piece on Senator Bernie Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 wrote in with a simple, powerful question: “How would this affect us?”
In fewer than 10 words, that message prompted me to dig much deeper. What follows is the result: a closer look at how the bill, introduced just days ago, intersects with Native American citizenship, the U.S. expatriation tax regime, Social Security benefits, diplomatic relations and bedrock Supreme Court precedent — and why even well-intentioned policies can carry unintended consequences when moved at speed.
In the whirlwind of post-election legislative activity, Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) introduced the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, within the first year of his tenure. The bill aims to “outlaw” dual U.S. citizenship by requiring individuals who hold citizenship in the United States and another sovereign nation to renounce one within a one-year grace period. Failure to act would result in the automatic loss of U.S. citizenship, with the stated goal of ensuring “sole and exclusive allegiance to the United States” and mitigating potential conflicts from foreign citizenship ties.
An Email From A Concerned Native American
My earlier Forbes article on the Exclusive Citizenship Act prompted an unexpected email from a Native American reader, inquiring about its potential effects on Indigenous communities. This was a thought-provoking question and demonstrates how well-meaning policies can intersect with complex histories in surprising ways. Before a bill is proposed there should always be thorough prior research and deliberation. Policymakers navigating this proposal in a divided Congress will hopefully pause to explore the nuances raised in my article.
Native American Citizenship and Tribal Sovereignty: Foreign Allegiance?
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 formalized U.S. citizenship for Native Americans granting birthright citizenship to all indigenous people born within U.S. territory. This legislation recognized Native individuals as full U.S. citizens while at the same time preserving their tribal affiliations. It forged a unique form of dual status that has continued now for over a century.
In my view, tribal membership does not constitute “dual citizenship” in the international sense targeted by Senator Moreno’s bill. Federally recognized tribes are viewed as “domestic dependent nations,” and not as “foreign” nations. This distinction was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831). Native American tribes are considered sovereign nations in certain key respects; their sovereignty is inherent but it exists within the framework of their relationship with the United States. Tribal membership represents a political relationship within this U.S. framework. The unique political status of tribal citizenship does not constitute the kind of foreign allegiance the Exclusive Citizenship Act seems intended to address.
Yet, the inquiry from my reader underscores a deeply human and valid concern: For Native American communities, citizenship issues involve a complex and often painful history that have included periods of forced assimilation, challenges in exercising voting rights and the loss of ancestral lands. Recent events have highlighted sensitivities, and apprehensions about citizenship appear strongly in the Native American community. For that reason, even well-intentioned proposals touching on citizenship and allegiance can raise understandable questions and unease among tribal citizens and leaders. As the legislation progresses, input from Native organizations should be sought as such valuable input could help ensure these perspectives are integrated.
Exit Tax, Social Security Cuts, Diplomacy and Constitutional Clash: Consequences No One Is Talking About
The Native American question is only one facet of concern. The Exclusive Citizenship Act also raises significant issues around taxation, social security benefits, international law, and constitutional precedent. These issues, and perhaps others, deserve thorough examination before the bill advances any further.
The proposal’s mechanism under which inaction leads to automatic deemed “voluntary relinquishment” of U.S. citizenship appears to directly trigger the U.S. expatriation tax regime under Internal Revenue Code Section 877A. The regime’s “exit tax” imposes a mark-to-market tax on unrealized capital gains as well as other harsh tax consequences for certain “covered expatriates.” Covered expatriates can include individuals who may not have substantial assets or income if they have not been fully tax compliant for the prior 5-year period. Many dual citizens, unaware of this provision, could face devastating unexpected financial burdens as a result of their deemed relinquishment of citizenship. Further, the tax hit does not stop there. It can also result in significant tax repercussions (a 40% transfer tax) for any U.S. persons receiving gifts or bequests at any time in the future from the expatriate. It is unclear whether this interaction with the expatriation tax regime was modeled or addressed during the bill’s drafting.
Another possibly overlooked consequence involves Social Security benefits for those living abroad. Many people, especially foreign nationals or former U.S. citizens who used to live or work in the U.S., are unaware that the Social Security Administration treats non‑citizens differently depending on their country of citizenship, not where they live. The Social Security Administration maintains payment lists: foreign individuals who retain citizenship only in certain approved countries can continue receiving benefits while living overseas. Lose U.S. citizenship and keep citizenship solely in a non-listed country, and benefits stop unless the individual returns to the United States at least once every six months and lawfully remains there for a full calendar month each time before payments resume. This requirement often comes as a shock to those who believe Social Security benefits are a set entitlement once earned. For retirees or disabled individuals losing U.S. citizenship as a result of this bill, it could mean forced return trips to America or permanent loss of earned benefits. Was this possibility addressed during drafting of the proposed bill?
International diplomatic dynamics add another layer. Some countries do not permit birthright citizens to renounce their nationality, even if this was mandated by another country’s domestic law. For individuals from these nations (for example, Argentina, Morocco, Ecuador) compliance with the bill could prove impossible. How would the bill address such scenarios without complicating diplomatic relations?
The bill as proposed faces significant Constitutional hurdles. Landmark Supreme Court decisions about citizenship were discussed in my earlier Forbes article. To recap, Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) affirmed that U.S. citizenship cannot be revoked involuntarily; it is strongly protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Similarly, Vance v. Terrazas (1980) requires the government to prove the individual acted voluntarily and had intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship; mere inaction could never pass this test as it is neither voluntary nor intentional. These precedents set by the highest court in the United States of America suggest the bill would face swift legal challenges. Was such precedent considered in the bill’s drafting and how can it be reconciled?
The Bottom Line
Senator Moreno’s initiative falls squarely into debates about national loyalty in an interconnected and global world. The bill is in its very early stages. This means there is time and opportunity for refinement. A significant next step would be for staff to dig seriously into the issues this piece has raised: Native sovereignty and the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, the nightmare scenarios involving the Section 877A exit-tax and potential loss of Social Security benefits, diplomatic relations, and the clear Supreme Court holdings in Afroyim and Terrazas. By taking these steps Congress could produce something far more durable and fair.
My reader’s short email drove the point home for me: the only thing that ultimately matters is how a law actually plays out in people’s lives. If affected communities are heard and the hard legal, tax, diplomatic, and constitutional questions are faced head-on, Senator Moreno’s proposal could still mature into a serious, worthwhile conversation about allegiance in the 21st century. If not, the growing pushback we’re already seeing in Senator Moreno’s home state of Ohio suggests it will struggle to move forward. Either way, the episode is another reminder that good lawmaking almost always starts with foresight and most importantly with intensive, cross-disciplinary research that avoids unintended consequences and turns a bold idea into durable policy.
Posted January 6, 2026
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 8, 2025
Virginia - US TAX TALK 