Decoding the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025: Essential Clauses and Consequences

The Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, introduced by Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH), proposes a strict prohibition on holding U.S. citizenship concurrently with any other nationality.Under this legislation, individuals possessing dual citizenship would be required to renounce all foreign allegiances within one year or automatically forfeit their American citizenship.

Core Provisions and Implementation Timeline

• The statute would become effective six months after its enactment.
• Existing dual citizens must surrender their non-U.S. nationalities within a 12-month grace period or lose U.S. citizenship by default.
• Failure to act within this timeframe will be legally interpreted as voluntary relinquishment under section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1481(a)).
• Voluntarily acquiring foreign nationality after the law’s commencement triggers immediate loss of American citizenship.
• The Departments of State and Homeland Security are tasked with developing verification mechanisms and updating federal records accordingly to enforce compliance.

Populations Impacted by This Legislation

This bill affects various categories of Americans:

• Naturalized citizens who have retained their original country’s nationality alongside U.S. status.
• Individuals born in the united States who automatically inherit another nationality at birth due to parental origins abroad.
• Children born overseas to one American parent and one foreign parent holding dual citizenship from birth.
• Spouses who acquire foreign nationality through marriage without actively seeking it themselves under another nation’s laws.
• Citizens who later naturalize in other countries following enactment, thereby risking automatic expatriation under this law’s terms.

The Constitutional Controversy Over Presumed Loss of Citizenship

This legislation’s assumption that failing to renounce other nationalities equates to voluntary abandonment conflicts with established Supreme court rulings protecting involuntary loss of citizenship rights. In Afroyim v. rusk, 387 U.S.253 (1967), the Court held that Congress cannot strip an individual’s American nationality without explicit consent, reinforcing Fourteenth Amendment protections guaranteeing that no citizen shall lose status involuntarily.

This principle was further clarified in Vance v. terrazas, 444 U.S.252 (1980), which emphasized that expatriation requires clear proof beyond reasonable doubt showing intentional relinquishment-not merely performing acts like obtaining a second passport but demonstrating specific intent to abandon allegiance.

The Exclusive Citizenship Act contradicts these precedents by presuming voluntary forfeiture based solely on passive non-compliance after a deadline-an approach inconsistent with constitutional safeguards demanding affirmative intent before revoking someone’s nationality can occur legally.

Tackling Enforcement Challenges Amid Global Diplomatic Complexities

A major obstacle lies in enforcement logistics since no comprehensive centralized database currently exists tracking all dual citizens across federal agencies.

mandating self-reporting during passport renewals or visa applications risks administrative burdens compounded by potential inaccuracies or purposeful omissions.

Nations often reject unilateral demands for renunciation imposed externally; ancient examples reveal reciprocal refusals when countries attempt forced denaturalization based solely on domestic statutes.

an Illustrative Case: International Diplomatic Tensions Over Dual Allegiance Policies

A recent incident involved an Australian-American engineer living abroad whose attempt at unilateral renunciation-mandated by new exclusive allegiance laws enacted overseas-was rejected by her second country’s government, underscoring diplomatic friction risks inherent in enforcing such policies globally.

Treasury concerns: Tax Implications Triggered By Automatic Expatriation Rules

If enacted, automatic loss triggered under this bill could expose affected individuals to notable tax liabilities governed by Internal Revenue Code provisions related to “covered expatriates.”

• An individual is deemed a covered expatriate if they possess net assets exceeding $3 million or have average annual income tax liabilities above $220,000 (adjusted for inflation as projected for mid-2025).
• Lapses in filing full tax returns over five years prior also contribute toward this classification.
• Certain covered expatriates face immediate “mark-to-market” exit taxes calculated on unrealized gains across worldwide assets at rates approximating 23-24% capital gains tax upon losing citizenship-even if financially unplanned beforehand.
• Additionally, future transfers such as gifts or inheritances from former citizens may incur punitive transfer taxes up to 40%, payable by recipients residing inside the United States-a considerable financial burden often overlooked until too late.

This framework means many might unexpectedly confront heavy fiscal penalties without prior warning or opportunity for strategic asset planning due solely to passive failure rather than deliberate choice-a scenario raising fairness concerns among affected populations worldwide.

Navigating Exceptions: The Dual Nationals at birth Provision

A narrow exemption exists allowing some individuals born holding two nationalities simultaneously (“dual nationals at birth”) possibly avoid covered expatriate designation despite wealth thresholds if they satisfy stringent IRS criteria-though navigating these rules demands expert guidance well before any forced relinquishment event occurs.

Synthesizing Loyalty Expectations With Constitutional Protections And Practical Realities

The Exclusive Citizenship act embodies an effort aimed at ensuring undivided loyalty among Americans but risks alienating millions whose identities are shaped through complex multicultural backgrounds spanning generations across borders.

Court precedent strongly indicates any policy imposing presumed loss via mere inactivity fundamentally conflicts with constitutional guarantees established decades ago protecting voluntary retention unless explicitly surrendered through affirmative acts supported by clear evidence of intent.

“Citizenship transcends legal definitions; it intertwines deeply with personal identity forged over lifetimes.”

epilogue: Legal Viability And Societal Ramifications

If enacted unchanged into law, expect robust judicial challenges likely resulting in invalidation grounded on Fourteenth Amendment principles reaffirmed repeatedly since Afroyim v Rusk . The bill’s premise equating silence-or failure-to active consent undermines foundational rights embedded deeply within America’s constitutional framework.