Americans Face Dual Citizenship Ban: What the Senate Bill Means Now

(UNITED STATES) — A new senate bill labeled the exclusive citizenship act of 2025 would, if enacted, require many Americans with dual citizenship to choose one nationality and could treat some former citizens as “aliens” under U.S. immigration law.

1) Overview: What the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 proposes

The proposal, introduced as S. 3309, is framed by its sponsor as an “all or nothing” approach to U.S. nationality—what supporters describe as Exclusive Citizenship. As of today, Monday, January 12, 2026, it is not enacted law.

That distinction matters because introduced legislation can generate headlines and public anxiety while changing nothing in day-to-day agency operations unless and until it becomes law. In Congress, “introduced” generally means a bill has been filed and assigned for consideration. “Passed” means it has cleared a chamber (the Senate or the House).

“Signed” means it has been enacted after passing both chambers and receiving the President’s signature (or becoming law without it). Until enactment, existing rules on dual nationality remain in place in most situations.

public attention matters anyway. citizenship planning often includes travel, passports, family sponsorship, and foreign property issues. Even a proposal can prompt people to consider renunciation steps. That is an area where acting too quickly can create avoidable harm.

2) Official statements and positions

According to the sponsor’s office, Senator Bernie Moreno (R–OH) introduced S. 3309 on December 1, 2025. Introducing a bill signals political intent and starts the legislative process. It does not, by itself, direct USCIS, DHS, or the Department of State to begin taking action against dual nationals.

Operational changes typically require enacted statutory authority and, often, agency guidance. For immigration benefits, that usually appears through USCIS Policy Manual updates, formal policy memoranda, or regulations published in the Federal Register. For passports and consular practice, changes commonly appear through Department of State guidance and updated public webpages.

As of the current “as of” date, there is no implemented dual-citizenship ban reflected in routine USCIS adjudications or State Department dual-national travel guidance. In fact, the State Department has recently referenced dual nationals in a travel-related context, which signals continued operational recognition of dual nationality for certain purposes.

Readers who want to confirm any real-world change should look for: (1) enactment on Congress.gov, (2) implementing guidance from USCIS or State, and (3) any Federal Register notices tied to citizenship or expatriation procedures.

3) Key provisions and policy details (what the bill would do if enacted)

S. 3309 proposes a mandatory “choice” system for many Americans who possess dual nationality. In general terms, it would create a fixed period after enactment during which affected individuals must take steps to renounce foreign citizenship.

Renunciation is not one uniform act worldwide. It often depends on the foreign country’s laws, forms, fees, appointments, and approval timelines. Some countries do not permit renunciation at all, or impose conditions that can take time.

The bill also proposes forfeiture triggers. One trigger is failure to renounce the foreign nationality within the prescribed window. Another trigger would be later “voluntary” acquisition of a foreign citizenship after enactment.

In the bill’s framing, those triggers could cause an individual to be treated as having voluntarily relinquished U.S. citizenship.

To support enforcement, the proposal directs DHS and the State Department to build a centralized tracking database for dual nationals. It also includes language that would record affected individuals in federal systems and treat them as an alien for purposes of the immigration laws.

That concept is consequential. In practical terms, it could mean needing a visa to enter the United States, being subject to grounds of inadmissibility, and being removable if present without lawful status.

The most important practical uncertainty is that nationality is sometimes imposed by foreign law. Some people may be considered citizens of another country by descent or birth, even if they never sought it. Others may be unable to complete renunciation under foreign procedures. Those conflicts are likely to be central if the measure moves forward.

4) Context, legal considerations, and significance

Any attempt to impose automatic loss of citizenship runs into longstanding constitutional constraints. The leading Supreme Court precedent is Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967). Afroyim is commonly summarized this way: the government cannot take U.S. citizenship away without the citizen’s voluntary relinquishment.

That principle is tied to the Fourteenth Amendment and has shaped modern expatriation doctrine. Related federal law reflects that framework. Under INA § 349 (8 U.S.C. § 1481), certain acts can be expatriating, but the government generally must show the act was performed voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. nationality.

Litigation over “intent” is common in citizenship-loss disputes, and standards can be fact-driven. If an automatic forfeiture regime were enacted, expected legal debates would likely include due process, proof of intent, and whether Congress can define “voluntary relinquishment” by deeming it to occur after a missed deadline.

Court outcomes can vary by circuit and by record evidence. Implementation could also differ depending on agency posture and resources.

It is also important to separate expatriation from denaturalization. Denaturalization is typically pursued where the government alleges citizenship was illegally obtained, often due to fraud or material misrepresentation during the naturalization process. See, for example, Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (materiality principles in denaturalization).

Denaturalization is not normally based on merely holding another nationality. Recent reporting and agency messaging have increased public focus on denaturalization referrals and screening. Even without new legislation, enforcement priorities can influence how aggressively agencies investigate alleged fraud.

That does not mean dual citizenship alone creates denaturalization exposure, but it can affect how people assess risk and recordkeeping.

5) Impact on individuals and population estimates

If enacted as written, the proposal could affect a wide range of Americans with dual nationality, including: (1) dual citizens by birth, (2) naturalized citizens who retained a prior citizenship, (3) people who acquired citizenship abroad through parents, and (4) people who later obtained a foreign citizenship through marriage or registration.

Day-to-day impacts could include U.S. passport practice, consular protection abroad, voting access, eligibility for certain federal jobs, and cross-border family planning. It could also affect travel in both directions. A person treated as an “alien” could face inspection at ports of entry like any other noncitizen and might need a visa or ESTA, depending on the country.

A common point of confusion is the difference between holding a foreign passport and “acquiring” foreign citizenship. A passport is evidence of nationality, but nationality can exist without a passport. Conversely, some foreign passports can be issued to noncitizen nationals or in other special statuses.

People should confirm their actual nationality status under the other country’s laws before making decisions. On scale, estimates cited publicly suggest millions of Americans may hold dual citizenship. That matters because large-scale changes could produce administrative backlogs and inconsistent outcomes, at least initially.

It also matters because family members may have mixed statuses. One spouse may be a dual national. Children may have derivative claims abroad. Those facts can shift planning.

If, hypothetically, the bill became law, decision pressure points could include: whether renunciation is possible under foreign law, how to document renunciation attempts, what happens if a foreign state does not recognize renunciation, and how loss of U.S. citizenship would change one’s ability to live and work in the United States.

For many, the stakes would include exposure to removal proceedings if they remain without another lawful status. Practical planning steps that can be taken now—without assuming the bill will pass—include maintaining clean records of naturalization, passports, foreign nationality documents, and any prior statements made in immigration filings.

People who may be affected should also monitor Congress.gov and agency updates, rather than relying on commentary.

6) Official sources and where to read more

To verify what is real law versus proposal, use primary sources and look for concrete status markers.

• Congress.gov (bill tracker and text). This is the most reliable place to confirm the bill’s latest actions, committee posture, amendments, and whether it has passed either chamber. Start with the bill page.
• Senator’s official press release. Political statements explain intent and framing. They do not change the law. If you read a press release, pair it with the bill text on Congress.gov and later enacted statutory text if it passes.
• USCIS Newsroom and Policy Manual. USCIS operational changes are often reflected in its Newsroom and in the Policy Manual. Check for updates tied to citizenship, naturalization, and policy changes: USCIS and USCIS Policy Manual
• Department of State guidance on dual nationals and travel. The State Department is the key public source for passport and consular framing, including travel advisories and nationality topics.
• What counts as a confirmed change. A confirmed change typically requires enacted law plus implementing guidance that tells officers and the public how the change will be applied. Commentary, campaign messaging, and interviews are not implementation.

If you believe a government officer has wrongly denied a passport, wrongly annotated a record, or pressured you to sign a statement of relinquishment, you should consult counsel promptly. Timing can matter in citizenship and passport disputes, and remedies differ depending on the agency and posture.

Legal help and reader resources

• AILA Lawyer Referral: AILA Lawyer Referral
• Immigration Advocates Network (nonprofit legal directory)
• USCIS Contact Center and case tools: USCIS
• EOIR Immigration Court information (for removal proceedings): EOIR Immigration Court information