The Exclusive Allegiance Debate: Examining Senator Moreno’s Citizenship Bill

It is often said that Congress moves in mysterious ways, with countless bills proposed each year that attract little attention from the general public. Yet, every so often, a piece of legislation emerges that speaks directly to the lived experiences of a significant portion of the population.

This is one such moment. Due to the current political focus on immigration and national loyalty, a recently introduced bill has captured significant news attention and holds potential personal impact for many American families.¹

The Proposed Legislation: The Exclusive Citizenship Act

Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) has introduced the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025.² This bill aims to fundamentally alter the United States’ long-standing practice of accepting dual citizenship.³

• Senator Moreno’s Stance: Senator Moreno, who was born in Colombia and voluntarily renounced his Colombian citizenship upon becoming an American citizen, has argued that “Being an American citizen is an honor and a privilege—and if you want to be an American, it’s all or nothing.”⁴
• The Bill’s Requirement: The proposed Act would require individuals who currently hold dual citizenship to formally renounce their foreign citizenship within one year of the law’s enactment or risk being deemed to have relinquished their U.S. citizenship.⁵
• Context: This proposal seeks to codify in law a principle of sole allegiance, bringing the legal framework in line with the absolute language found in the Oath of Allegiance.⁶

The Conflict: The Oath vs. The Policy Reality

The heart of this debate lies in the long-recognized discrepancy between the formal text of the naturalization oath and the U.S. government’s administrative policy.

1. The Strict Language of the Oath

When a naturalized citizen takes the Oath of Allegiance, they explicitly swear:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…”

Literally speaking, this declaration demands a complete severing of all former political loyalties.

2. The U.S. Government’s Interpretation (The Policy Reality)

Despite the strict language above, the U.S. government has, in practice, long permitted dual citizenship.

• Source Confirmation: The U.S. Department of State (DOS) officially recognizes the existence of dual nationality, stating that U.S. law does not require a citizen to choose between nationalities.⁷
• The Intent Standard: Since a landmark 1967 Supreme Court ruling (Afroyim v. Rusk), a U.S. citizen can only lose their citizenship if they perform a potentially expatriating act with the intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship.⁸ The DOS currently presumes that a naturalized citizen intends to keep their U.S. citizenship unless they state otherwise.
• Global Context: It is important to note that whether a person loses their previous citizenship depends entirely on the laws of their country of birth. Many countries, such as Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil, facilitate dual citizenship, while others, like China, India, and Singapore, generally require renunciation.

Key Areas of Impact

This bill raises complex personal, logistical, and constitutional questions that extend beyond standard immigration debates.⁹

A. Constitutional and Legal Challenges

The most significant hurdle the Exclusive Citizenship Act faces is the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment.¹⁰ The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that U.S. citizenship cannot be involuntarily stripped; it can only be lost through a voluntary act performed with the intent to relinquish it.¹¹ Legal experts suggest that any law attempting to automatically revoke citizenship for a failure to renounce a foreign passport would likely face serious constitutional challenges.¹²

B. Impact on Military Service

The U.S. military actively recruits non-citizens, providing an expedited path to citizenship. This has resulted in thousands of dual citizens serving in the armed forces.

• Data: From Fiscal Year 2020 through 2024, over 52,000 service members were naturalized through their military service, nearly all retaining their country of birth’s citizenship.
• The Security Clearance Standard: For high-level positions requiring a security clearance, dual citizenship is considered a security concern. To mitigate this risk, service members are typically required to provide a written statement expressing paramount allegiance to the U.S. and to surrender foreign travel documents. The military manages this risk by requiring a declaration of loyalty and control over foreign documents, rather than an outright ban.

C. Governing Officials

The lack of a federal requirement to disclose dual citizenship makes tracking it difficult.¹³ While some high-profile officials like Senator Ted Cruz have publicly renounced their foreign citizenship (Canadian), the question remains: Should a person in a position to vote on matters of finance, war, and national security be subject to a different standard of allegiance?

The introduction of the Exclusive Citizenship Act highlights a profound, decades-old tension between the language of loyalty and the reality of a globalized world. It forces a public conversation about what “exclusive allegiance” truly means for millions of Americans with deep ties abroad.¹⁴

⚖️ A Question of Loyalty: Personal Implications of the

Exclusive Citizenship Act

The introduction of the Exclusive Citizenship Act strikes particularly close to home, transforming an abstract political debate into a potential crisis for many American families, including my own. My wife and son are both naturalized U.S. citizens who hold dual citizenship. The proposed bill, which seeks to require a formal, legal renunciation of their foreign citizenship, raises profound questions of fairness, precedent, and allegiance.

The Problem of Retroactive Consequence

My wife became a U.S. citizen over two decades ago. Her journey involved a thoughtful, heartfelt decision: a determination that while she loved her country of birth, her primary allegiance was and would remain with the United States. She gave her word, took the Oath of Allegiance in good faith, and incurred significant financial and personal costs to achieve this status.

If this law were to pass and force her to choose, it presents an issue of unacceptable retroactive consequence. If her U.S. citizenship is suddenly conditional 20 years later, it invites a jarring, if rhetorical, question: Does she receive a refund for the thousands of dollars spent on the naturalization process? Does she receive a rebate on the decades of federal and state taxes paid under the covenant of citizenship?

The emotional and financial investments made under the established policy of recognized dual citizenship cannot simply be voided by a subsequent change in law.

The Core Concern: Legal and Political Instability

The current U.S. policy accepts and accommodates dual citizenship as a general practice. This bill seeks to upend that status quo by challenging decades of legal precedent and administrative acceptance. This is where the concern deepens:

1. Judicial Precedent vs. Political Will: The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that citizenship cannot be stripped without clear evidence of the individual’s intent to relinquish it. If this bill were to pass and be challenged, the current Court would be forced to decide whether to uphold established precedent (Afroyim v. Rusk) or to overturn it in a manner that aligns with contemporary political pressures. The potential for a sudden shift in legal interpretation is undeniably unsettling.
2. Impact on the Military: The U.S. military actively recruits non-citizens and naturalizes thousands of service members annually, nearly all of whom become dual citizens. To pass a law that could potentially purge the ranks of dedicated service members—people who have sworn and demonstrated their allegiance through service—would be a dangerous and unwarranted attack on loyalty.
3. Why Now? The policy of recognized dual citizenship has existed for decades without being identified as a national security threat or a systemic allegiance issue. The decision to introduce this bill now appears motivated more by a desire to enforce a personal belief of exclusive loyalty than by addressing a clear, demonstrable failure in the current system.

While I respect the Senator who introduced the bill for having taken the step he now proposes for others, the decision to hold or renounce foreign citizenship is, and should remain, a profound personal choice made under the laws and policies in effect at the time of naturalization. To retroactively impose an exclusive mandate is to punish citizens who legally followed the rules of the country they swore to protect.

Sources Consulted: U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Oath of Allegiance; U.S. Senate Press Releases for Senator Bernie Moreno (on the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025); Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports on Naturalization and Dual Citizenship; News reports on the bill’s introduction and potential legal challenges.