After pitching a sweeping ban that would force millions of Americans to choose a single passport, Sen. Bernie Moreno now insists his proposal only targets future immigrants — a claim flatly contradicted by his bill’s text and his earlier interviews.​

A Senator Shifts His Story

Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio has begun describing his Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 as a narrow measure aimed only at future naturalized citizens, even though the bill itself would apply retroactively to every American who holds another citizenship today. On a recent appearance on the “Standpoint” podcast, he told host Gabe Groisman that the proposal would affect “new people going forward” and not those who already possess dual nationality.​

That framing is a sharp departure from how Moreno sold the bill in earlier conservative media hits, where he stressed that current dual citizens would be forced to choose between passports within one year or lose their U.S. status. The rhetorical pivot has come only after days of fierce blowback from legal experts, immigrant communities, and Americans abroad who saw the proposal as an unprecedented attempt to police identity and allegiance.​

What The Bill Actually Says

The Exclusive Citizenship Act, introduced December 1, would outlaw dual or multiple citizenship for all Americans by requiring “exclusive allegiance” to the United States. The bill declares that “an individual may not be a citizen or national of the United States while simultaneously possessing any foreign citizenship,” and directs agencies to build systems to track and enforce that rule.​

The most far‑reaching language appears in Section 4(c), which orders that within one year of enactment, any U.S. citizen who “also possesses foreign citizenship” must either submit a written renunciation of the foreign citizenship to the State Department or a written renunciation of U.S. citizenship to the Department of Homeland Security. Those who do nothing “shall be deemed to have voluntarily relinquished United States citizenship,” with no carve‑out for people born in the United States or for long‑time dual nationals who acquired a second passport by descent or marriage.​

Moreno’s All‑Or‑Nothing Rhetoric

Moreno has framed the proposal as a moral test of loyalty, rooted in his own experience emigrating from Colombia and naturalizing as an American at 18 after renouncing his Colombian citizenship. “Being an American citizen is an honor and a privilege — and if you want to be an American, it’s all or nothing,” he declared in a statement announcing the bill, promising to “end dual citizenship for good.”​​

In an earlier interview with Steve Bannon, Moreno rejected the idea that the bill would only apply prospectively, saying “it’s everybody” and asserting that dual nationals would get one year to make a decision: “You’re either an American citizen or you’re a citizen of another country. You can’t have dual allegiances.” That absolutist language now sits uneasily beside his more recent attempt to recast the measure as targeting only future applicants for citizenship.​

Public Anger And Constitutional Red Lines

The proposal has triggered alarm among Americans who live transnational lives, from children of immigrants to U.S. citizens who have acquired another passport to study, work, or retire abroad. Advocacy groups for citizens overseas warn that millions could be pushed into a coerced “choice” that would rupture family ties and jeopardize careers, while immigration lawyers describe the bill as a direct challenge to bedrock constitutional protections.​

Those protections are anchored in the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and in Supreme Court precedents like Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazas. In Afroyim, the Court held that Congress has no power to strip citizenship absent a person’s voluntary renunciation, a principle later reinforced in Terrazas, which required proof that any relinquishment be intentional and voluntary — a standard at odds with deeming millions of Americans to have “voluntarily” given up citizenship by missing a one‑year deadline.​

The Oath, The Law, And The Limits Of Renunciation

Central to Moreno’s argument is the oath of allegiance that new citizens swear, which includes a pledge to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity” to foreign states. He has suggested that this language is inconsistent with continued dual citizenship and that the law should be rewritten to bring lived practice in line with the oath’s text.​​

Legal scholars, however, note that the oath has never, on its own, caused anyone to lose their foreign citizenship; whether that happens is up to the other country’s laws, many of which now accept dual nationality. The U.S. government’s own guidance reflects this reality: the State Department states that “U.S. law does not require a U.S. citizen to choose between U.S. citizenship and another nationality,” and that Americans may naturalize elsewhere “without any risk” to their U.S. status, absent a clear, intentional renunciation.​

Source: Sabrina Eaton, “Sen. Bernie Moreno backtracks on dual citizenship bill’s scope – despite what legislation says”, Cleveland.com

Main Image Source: Cleveland.com