Sen. Bernie Moreno has introduced the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, a proposal to eliminate dual citizenship and demand exclusive allegiance to the United States; this article explains the bill’s aims, what it would require of citizens, Moreno’s personal reasoning as a naturalized American, and the broader immigration context driving the proposal.
George Washington warned that a common country has a right to concentrate its citizens’ affections, and that warning sits at the heart of the current debate over dual citizenship. Today, many Americans hold ties to other nations, which some argue creates a real risk of divided loyalties. The new bill makes that risk the legal focus, arguing that citizenship should mean undivided commitment to one nation.
The Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would bar U.S. citizens from retaining citizenship in another country and would treat voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship after the law’s effective date as forfeiture of U.S. citizenship. Under the proposal, those who already hold dual citizenship would be given a limited window—one year—to choose which citizenship to keep. The objective is to force a clear, enforceable line between allegiance to the United States and political obligations elsewhere.
Moreno, who immigrated from Colombia, says American citizenship demands “exclusive allegiance.”
Senator Moreno frames the change as a defense of national cohesion and a way to strengthen the social compact that underpins American liberty. He argues that if you want to be an American, your political and civic commitments must be rooted here, not split between competing governments. That’s a direct appeal to the traditional notion that citizenship implies obligations and responsibilities, not just benefits.
At its core the legislation targets legal statuses that create obligations to foreign powers, not merely cultural or familial ties. The bill would treat any legal duty to another country as incompatible with U.S. citizenship, and it would automatically strip citizenship from anyone who voluntarily takes on a foreign citizenship after the law takes effect. The practical impact would be significant for people who move freely between nations, hold public office abroad, or are subject to foreign military or tax obligations.
Supporters say the policy would clarify allegiance, reduce vulnerability to foreign influence, and streamline national security assessments. Critics will argue that it punishes immigrants with genuine connections to their homelands and that it could create administrative nightmares for families with cross-border lives. Those trade-offs are central to the political fight this bill will ignite in Congress.
Moreno brings a personal story to his push, and he stresses the emotional weight of the oath that naturalized citizens take when they accept U.S. citizenship. He frames the oath as more than ceremonial—a true commitment of political identity that should not be diluted. His own background as a naturalized American informs his insistence that citizenship must be whole, not fractional.
One of the greatest honors of my life was when I became an American citizen at 18, the first opportunity I could do so. It was an honor to pledge an Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America and ONLY to the United States of America! Being an American citizen is an honor and a privilege—and if you want to be an American, it’s all or nothing. It’s time to end dual citizenship for good.
That quote underscores the symbolic and civic argument driving the legislation: citizenship is a pledge, and pledges require clarity. Outside of symbolism, supporters say there are practical reasons to act, including national security and the need to ensure elected officials, contractors, and sensitive personnel have undivided loyalties. The proposal also feeds into a broader Republican focus on tightening immigration rules and holding policymakers accountable for border control outcomes.
The bill arrives amid heated debates about recent immigration flows and vetting practices. Concern has been voiced over how many people entered the country in recent years and what vetting processes were used, and those concerns fuel the urgency behind measures that test and enforce loyalty. For many on the right, ending dual citizenship would reinforce a long-standing principle: entry into the national community should mean assimilation and commitment.
Beyond national security, supporters say the change will restore clarity to public life and public service, protecting institutions from foreign entanglements and simplifying legal norms around taxes, military service, and diplomatic protections. Opponents will highlight families and immigrants who maintain cultural ties, but advocates emphasize the primacy of civic allegiance in a republic founded on self-government.
If the law passes, it will trigger intense legal and political battles over citizenship rights, enforcement mechanisms, and exemptions for unique cases. Lawmakers will have to decide how rigidly to apply the one-year choice window and whether narrow exceptions might be needed for dual nationals with complex personal circumstances. Whatever the outcome, the proposal forces a national discussion about what it means to be American.
It’s been argued that exposing divided loyalties to scrutiny will strengthen democratic norms and make it harder for foreign governments to exert influence through citizens who answer to two states. That argument will shape the policy debate in ways both practical and philosophical as Congress wrestles with the bill’s passage. The stakes are high: citizenship law shapes who we count as Americans and what we expect of them.
Thanks to President Trump, illegal immigration into our great country has virtually stopped. Despite the radical left’s lies, new legislation wasn’t needed to secure our border, just a new president.
Help us continue to report the truth about the president’s border policies and mass deportations. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Add comment