Exclusive Citizenship Act

Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio has introduced a bill to eliminate dual citizenship for Americans.

The "Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” would establish that citizens of the United States "shall owe sole and exclusive allegiance to the United States," according to a text of the bill.

https://www.newsweek.com/dual-citizenship-requirements-millions-americans-new-bill-moreno-11139538

This bill would certainly resolve a lot of tax issues for many of us! Not that I think it has any chance of making it into law.

More questions than answers for me. Would the next step be eliminating SS for non-citizens?

How about private pensions paid to non-citizens?

There's a link in the Newsweek article to the text of the proposed bill. It's very short and provides no detail on the implementation. It seems to me that this is just posturing and there's no expectation that this will go anywhere.

I had a bit about this in NewsFlash, so I'll copy it to here and then delete it there.


 Legislation just proposed, titled the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, states that “citizens of the United States shall owe sole and exclusive allegiance to the United States.” The text of the bill says that “an individual may not be a citizen or national of the United States while simultaneously possessing any foreign citizenship.” Under the proposal, U.S. citizens who also hold foreign citizenship would be required to renounce their non-U.S. citizenship within one year of enactment or alternatively renounce their American citizenship. Those who do not comply would “be deemed to have voluntarily relinquished United States citizenship.”

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that U.S. citizens cannot lose their citizenship unless they voluntarily relinquish it. Courts have also recognized dual nationality as a longstanding legal status established as far back as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg, and affirmed in The Kawakita v. United States (1952). The landmark Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) held that U.S. citizens cannot be stripped of their citizenship involuntarily, which undercuts the idea that merely holding citizenship elsewhere should nullify U.S. citizenship. As Newsweek previously reported, experts have noted that any law forcing Americans to renounce foreign citizenship could prompt significant legal scrutiny. -  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/melania-trump-could-be-impacted-by-new-citizenship-bill/ar-AA1RzCJR?ocid=socialshare 

I have serious reservations about this having any real chance to pass.  If it did, it'd be hell to implement. It would also pretty much force me to move overseas before the deadline (assuming I could find a way to bring the Daughter with me). Otherwise my options are to split the family across two continents or give up my non-USA citizenship.

If this regime stays in power, I can imagine them doing something to the social security of anyone who renounces, and of any foreign nationals who have accrued SSA benefits in the USA. It fits their M.O.   I can also imagine them charging the equivalent of an exit fee (and probably a steep one) if one does not drop the foreign citizenship.  But I am only side-eying this bit of legislation at present. I don't see it passing, but I've been wrong before.

Ultimately, I think this could only work with new Naturalisation, or if a U.S. born person wished to become a foreign citizen and hand back his/her U.S. Passport. There must be millions upon millions of U.S/other country citizens through the world and domestically.  It would have devastating repercussions for those not living in a Totalisation country and then loosing SS benefits. Taking SS away from people that rely on that income would cause homelessness in many cases. Also, if Totalisation agreements countries changed we in the U.K would loose SS including Spousal benefit. As a Naturalised U.S. Citizen, I would never voluntarily renounce, as one day laws/agreements could change. Hate to think what would happen if I and my spouse lost SS benefits

Yeah, them diddling with SS is one of my major fears.  As a retired person, and while I don't depend entirely on it, it's a major chunk of my income. If I were in the UK or France and they cut off my SS, I'd have no way to replace that income as I have never worked abroad. The impact would be devastating. I know a number of people who have retired to the EU and UK already who are in the same situation. They'd end up homeless.

In my case it would be a matter of timing. If I relocate to France on my dual EU citizenship, it would be to be able to bring my daughter with me as an EU dependent. (I could, of course, retire to France as an American, but she'd have no way to accompany me on that route.)  If we did the EU route to get there and then had to chose between citizenships I don't think I'd renounce, but if they took it away there could hypothetically be grounds for one hell of a court battle. If I wasn't an Irish citizen any longer I'm not sure what would happen to my daughter's status until she got her 5-year permanent residency card. If they took my SS.... Well, lets just hope this bill goes nowhere and is just a bit of grandstanding. I'm assuming there's going to be a pretty strong backlash against it.

I see the bill now has a co-sponsor!
Here is an interesting interview, where the Senator now says that this would only apply to NEW Naturalised Citizens going forward. If you're born in the U.S, it wouldn't apply either.

https://rumble.com/v7320qc-dual-citizenship-coming-to-an-end-us-senator-bernie-moreno.html?e9s=rel_v2_ep

I see the bill now has a co-sponsor!
Here is an interesting interview, where the Senator now says that this would only apply to NEW Naturalised Citizens going forward. If you're born in the U.S, it wouldn't apply either.

https://rumble.com/v7320qc-dual-citizenship-coming-to-an-end-us-senator-bernie-moreno.html?e9s=rel_v2_ep

Hmmm. Well, the co-sponsor thing doesn't mean a lot, really.  I think I'll have to read the exact text of the proposed bill at some point - ya can never actually trust what a politician says is in the bill to actually be what is written there.

I see the bill now has a co-sponsor!
Here is an interesting interview, where the Senator now says that this would only apply to NEW Naturalised Citizens going forward.

It kinda, sorta used to be like that apparently. When I had my naturalization ceremony it was a small affair of about 12 people and when someone offered to hand over their passport the official explained that the USA does not take the property of another government.  This was in 1998 and when I told that story to a good friend who had moved over from England in 1962 and he and his wife were naturalized in the late 60’s he said they were required to hand over their UK passports as they were no longer citizens having now pledged allegiance to the USA. I told him that the only way to give up his UK citizenship was to formally renounce it in front of a UK consulate official. I also told him that his boys, born in the USA, could apply for a UK passport if they wanted to.

What the Senator said about it only being for new citizens is not accurate. The proposed legislation, as it reads in the current draft:


SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025”.

SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) To preserve the integrity of national citizenship, allegiance to the United States must be undivided.
(2) Existing law allows certain United States citizens to maintain foreign citizenship, which may create conflicts of interest and divided loyalties.
(3) It is in the national interest of the United States to ensure that United States citizenship is held exclusively.

SEC. 3. Definitions.

In this Act:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise specifically provided, any term used in this Act that is used in the immigration laws shall have the meaning given such term in the immigration laws.

(2) FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP.—The term “foreign citizenship” means any status recognized by the government of a foreign country that confers on an individual the nationality or citizenship of such country or requires the allegiance of an individual to such country.

(3) IMMIGRATION LAWS.—The term “immigration laws” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)).

SEC. 4. Prohibition on dual or multiple citizenship.

(a) In general.—An individual may not be a citizen or national of the United States while simultaneously possessing any foreign citizenship.
(b) Effect of acquisition of foreign citizenship.—A citizen of the United States who, after the date of the enactment of this Act, voluntarily acquires foreign citizenship shall be deemed to have relinquished United States citizenship.
(c) Dual citizens.—

(1) IN GENERAL.— Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, a citizen of the United States who also possesses foreign citizenship shall—

(A) submit to the Secretary of State a written renunciation of such foreign citizenship; or

(B) submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security a written renunciation of United States citizenship.

(2) EFFECT OF NONCOMPLIANCE.—An individual subject to paragraph (1) who fails to timely comply with that paragraph shall be deemed to have voluntarily relinquished United States citizenship for purposes of section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)).

(d) Effective date.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. Administration and enforcement.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act—

(1) the Secretary of State shall—

(A) promulgate regulations to carry out this Act, including procedures for declaration, verification, and recordkeeping of exclusive citizenship; and

(B) 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; and

(2) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall publish in the Federal Register a notification of the requirement under section 4(c).



I don't see this passing, as too many people have too much interest in keeping their dual citizenships. If by some stretch it did pass, it'd be tied up in court for a very long time.  Here's a write-up from the National Law Review about it:   https://natlawreview.com/article/american-citizens-and-nothing-else-what-exclusive-citizenship-act-2025-would-do-and

Well this is not good. The position of Americans abroad is getting dicey. If Trump blows things up, and the UK sides with NATO against the USA, Americans in the UK will be enemy aliens. That won't be pretty.

In our case, if we bug out to the EU, and Trump, say, invades Greenland, and the EU backs Denmark (which they should), we'd be enemy aliens in the EU -  I have EU citizenship, but I also have US citizenship. The daughter only has the latter. Even if they made some sort of positive allowance for us, being Americans in the EU when the EU was militarily or otherwise negatively engaged with the USA would be way beyond uncomfortable.

If we bug out to the EU, and Trump puts financial transaction blockades on, instead of using the military, as leverage to try to get control of Greenland, I could be cut off from the source of my funding (SSA and Pension) as it is US sourced and I can't lump-sum it and transfer it elsewhere. So, in a "foreign" country where we barely speak the language - me older than dirt and the daughter most likely  without employment, and out of money. Not a great scenario. Especially given that our nationality might not be exactly popular in the shops, etc.

So, I'm looking at a few other places. I do rather feel the metaphorical noose tightening, though.

In reading the proposed legislation about only having sole citizenship, which still appears to be dead in the water - but who knows what Trump would do by Executive Order anymore - it says I'd have to notify one of two US Federal departments that I was declaring allegiance only to the USA. But requires no proof that I'd formally notified Ireland I was renouncing my birthright. Or that I do so.

[I guess there's always Uruguay, but I'm not sure Yankees are going to be welcome there in the future, either. Would still go back to Scotland if we could. But we can't.]

If I was required to swear allegiance again to the USA to protect my livelihood (90% of our income comes from the USA) then I would do so. ( I swore allegiance already at my Naturalization ceremony). The US government cheats and lies constantly so why shouldn’t we. What I would never never do is renounce my birthright citizenship in the UK.

We have already cashed in my wife’s Roth and bought 2 houses that we rent out here in England. We did that 18 months ago when it looked like Trump was going to win again. If this bill makes it out of committee or Trump issues an executive order then we’d immediately cash in my Roth and buy more houses here. Then if the USA blocks our US pensions (2 private, 2 SS) we would manage just fine, it would simply be that our kids inherit less.

Well this is not good. The position of Americans abroad is getting dicey. If Trump blows things up, and the UK sides with NATO against the USA, Americans in the UK will be enemy aliens. That won't be pretty.

I can’t see mass internment or deportation or seizing of American assets ever happening here.

I realize that we are in a much better position than you and your daughter and my heart goes out to you.

In his interview, (via the link I had posted). He said it would only be for NEW Naturalised U.S. Citizens. At that point you'd need to not be Naturalised, or give up your other nationality. If you are already a dual national, this act would not apply.

I know what he said in the interview. But if you read the actual law, it's a blanket proclamation. Nothing in there about "only newbies". Given there's a lot of latitude about implementation based on the administration's reading of the law (should it ever become one), I absolutely would not bank on the "only newbies" scenario. This administration is infamous for saying one thing at the same time as they are actually doing something else.

It kinda, sorta used to be like that apparently. When I had my naturalization ceremony it was a small affair of about 12 people and when someone offered to hand over their passport the official explained that the USA does not take the property of another government.  This was in 1998 and when I told that story to a good friend who had moved over from England in 1962 and he and his wife were naturalized in the late 60’s he said they were required to hand over their UK passports as they were no longer citizens having now pledged allegiance to the USA. I told him that the only way to give up his UK citizenship was to formally renounce it in front of a UK consulate official. I also told him that his boys, born in the USA, could apply for a UK passport if they wanted to.

Yes, actually it did. On looking at my grandparents' (1921) and great-grandparents' (1870s - other side of the tree) naturalization paperwork, they specifically had to renounce allegiance to the King/Queen of Great Britain in their petitions.  When my mother's mother married in 1916, had she been an American, she would have lost her citizenship as she was marrying an Irishman.  Since she was Irish, once he became an American citizen, she and her children also became citizens (if they weren't born here). My great-grandmother was married for several years in NYC to an Irishman who never got citizenship although he fought in the Civil War.  Unfortunately, he died as the result of injuries in the line of duty, and when she remarried it was to a citizen. By the then laws, she became one as soon as the ink dried on the forms. I'm not sure when all that marriage stuff stopped - I suspect as late as the 1960s.