Analysis of Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act Proposal
Senator Bernie Moreno’s introduction of the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 marks a significant moment in citizenship law and national policy. This proposed legislation seeks to eliminate the option of dual citizenship for Americans, compelling individuals to choose between their U.S. nationality and any foreign citizenship they may hold within a year. This move challenges existing norms and raises serious questions about allegiance, legal frameworks, and implications for American citizens.
Moreno’s statement, “Being an American citizen is an honor and a privilege, and if you want to be an American, it’s ALL OR NOTHING,” resonates strongly with a segment of the American populace that values unequivocal loyalty to the nation. By framing citizenship as an exclusive commitment, the senator appeals to a sense of national pride and unity. His assertion that dual citizenship breeds divided loyalties echoes historical anxieties about foreign influence, particularly during conflicts or periods of national unrest.
Currently, the U.S. stance on dual citizenship is relatively permissive, allowing individuals to hold citizenship in another country—as long as they do not take actions that jeopardize their U.S. status, like serving in a foreign military. Moreno’s proposal would fundamentally shift this posture, placing the onus on dual nationals to renounce their foreign ties. If individuals fail to do so, they risk losing their American citizenship, a move that many legal experts believe could raise serious constitutional issues.
Moreno emphasizes national security in justifying this legislation, tapping into a broader unease surrounding issues of dual loyalty among citizens in sensitive positions such as military personnel and government contractors. Advocates of the bill argue it promotes national integrity and aligns with a growing sentiment that Americans must demonstrate undivided allegiance, particularly as the nation grapples with increasing scrutiny over transnational ties.
However, the proposed law may have serious ramifications for many individuals. Legal barriers to renouncing foreign citizenship can be formidable, as numerous countries impose strict regulations and bureaucratic hurdles. For example, citizens from Japan and Germany face rigorous application processes, while some nations make renunciation nearly impossible. These logistical challenges raise critical concerns about fairness and the enforceability of the new law across diverse demographics.
Constitutional questions loom large as well. Experts warn that the bill’s automatic forfeiture of citizenship for failure to comply with the renunciation requirement may violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects citizenship as a fundamental right. This perspective emphasizes the importance of individual choice and due process—the right to decide one’s own nationality without governmental coercion.
As support and opposition mount, the conversation around this legislation illustrates a deeper societal divide. Proponents frame the act as a necessary step toward preserving national integrity, while critics argue it risks alienating communities and undermining America’s diverse fabric. The political motivations behind the bill cannot be ignored, particularly as the midterm elections approach and issues of immigration and citizenship take center stage.
Moreno’s initiative has the potential to reshape discussions on what it means to be an American citizen. As the debate unfolds, the implications for millions of dual citizens, especially those with strong ties to other nations and those born of mixed-nationality families, are likely to remain contentious. The unfolding dialogue will reflect broader societal values regarding loyalty, legal rights, and the meaning of citizenship in an increasingly interconnected world.
"*" indicates required fields
