DHS Travel Ban Plans and the Exclusive Citizenship Act: 2025 Immigration Risks for Employers and Workers

By C. Matthew Schulz

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS is openly weighing whether to expand the already–sweeping travel restrictions that currently apply to nationals of 19 countries, as well as hold and review all pending asyum applications and all USCIS benefit applications filed by nationals from "high-risk countries." At the same time an Ohio senator introduced the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025,” which would effectively outlaw dual citizenship for Americans. 

Both developments are direct political responses to the recent shooting of National Guard soldiers in Washington, D.C. by an Afghan national. The U.S. government's reaction raises questions for employers, foreign national employees, and even U.S. citizens with another passport.

DHS travel restrictions today: Proclamation 10949 and the 19-country framework

The starting point is Presidential Proclamation 10949, “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” signed on June 4, 2025. 

Acting on a worldwide review of screening and information-sharing practices, the proclamation divides countries into two groups. 

Full suspension of entry. This impacts nationals of Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen as immigrants and as nonimmigrants. 

Partial suspention of entry. This partially suspends the entry of nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela for: 

• immigrant visas, and
• for common nonimmigrant categories, including B-1/B-2 visitors and F, M, and J students and exchange visitors, while directing consular posts to shorten the validity of other nonimmigrant visas for those nationals. 

The proclamation’s scope section explains that the suspension applies only to nationals of the listed countries who were outside the United States and did not have a valid visa as of the effective date (12:01 a.m. Eastern on June 9, 2025). 

This proclamation expressly states that no immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before that effective date is revoked because of the proclamation. 

The proclamation also carves out several exceptions, including 

• lawful permanent residents,
• dual nationals traveling on a passport from a non-listed country,
• certain diplomatic and NATO classifications,
• some immediate-relative immigrant visas,
• certain adoption and special immigrant cases, and
• specific persecuted minority categories in Iran. 

For a foreign national employee who already holds a valid visa and is in the United States, Proclamation 10949 does not automatically cancel the visa or terminate status. 

The bigger risks are at the consular and border stages: travel abroad may be impossible because consulates cannot issue new visas in most categories, and admission at the port of entry is always discretionary.

Post-shooting “pauses” and talk of a broader travel ban

The fatal shooting near the White House of Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and the wounding of Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe, allegedly by Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal—who entered through Operation Allies Welcome and was granted asylum earlier this year—has become the catalyst for a second wave of restrictions layered on top of Proclamation 10949 as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

In the days following the attack, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced “additional national security measures” in response to the shooting, and press reporting has described an internal directive pausing decisions on many immigration benefits for nationals of the same 19 “countries of identified concern.” According to major outlets like The Washington Post, that pause extends to green card adjudications, naturalization applications, and other benefit requests, and has already resulted in some cancelled interviews and naturalization ceremonies for affected nationals. 

In parallel, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has publicly urged what she calls a “sweeping” expansion of the travel ban. The New York Post reported that she has recommended enlarging the list from 19 to roughly 30 or more countries, with officials emphasizing that the plans are still preliminary and that the exact list could change. 

At this point, no new proclamation has been published in the Federal Register, so the legally operative framework remains Proclamation 10949 plus DHS and USCIS’s post-shooting internal policies. But the clear direction of travel is toward more countries, more vetting, and more classes of people seeing their applications slowed or frozen. 

For employees and HR teams, this means that nationals of the 19 listed countries now face both the original entry restrictions and increased uncertainty around their pending cases. Employees abroad with an approved petition may find that the consulate cannot issue a visa at all. Employees inside the United States with pending adjustment of status or naturalization applications may be subject to re-screening or extended delays, even if they have lived here lawfully for years.

Hold on USCIS Benefits from High-Risk Countries

December 2, 2025, USCIS issued Policy Memo PM-602-0192 order a hold and review of all pending asylum application and all USCIS benefit applications filed by people from high-risk countries.

All asylum applicants are impacted. Only people from high-risk countries have limites on USCIS benefits. "High-risk" countries is definted as the 19 countries listed in Proclamation 10949. USCIS benefits are not clearly defined, but a footnote gives the following examples:

• I-485 adjustment of status to permanent resident
• I-90 green card replacement/renewal
• N-470 preservatin of residence for naturalization
• I-751 removal of conditional basis of marriage-based immigration
• I-131 travel/advanced parole document 

In addition to the hold, the Policy Memo instructions USCIS to conduct a comprehensive re-review of approvals for citizens of these 19 countries if they entered the U.S. on or after January 20, 2021 (the start of the Biden Administration). New USCIS interviews seem likely, as well as security review against the Terrorist Screening Dataset.

The Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025: a frontal attack on dual citizenship

On the legislative side, Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) has introduced the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025,” aimed squarely at dual citizenship. His office describes the bill as designed to ensure that United States citizens owe “sole and exclusive allegiance” to the United States and to “end dual citizenship for good.” 

The bill is short and stark. It defines “foreign citizenship” broadly to include any status that confers nationality or citizenship of a foreign country or requires allegiance to it, using existing INA definitions for other terms. Section 4 of the bill provides that an individual “may not be a citizen or national of the United States while simultaneously possessing any foreign citizenship,” meaning that dual or multiple citizenship is categorically prohibited.

For future conduct, the bill states that any U.S. citizen who voluntarily acquires foreign citizenship after the date of enactment “shall be deemed to have relinquished United States citizenship.” For people who are already dual citizens, the bill gives them one year from enactment either to submit a written renunciation of their foreign citizenship to the Secretary of State or to submit a written renunciation of U.S. citizenship to the Secretary of Homeland Security. If they do neither, they are deemed to have voluntarily relinquished U.S. citizenship.

The effective-date section provides that this prohibition on dual citizenship would take effect 180 days after enactment, and during that time the State Department and DHS would be required to issue regulations, create procedures for “declaration, verification, and recordkeeping of exclusive citizenship,” and ensure that anyone deemed to have relinquished citizenship under the Act is recorded as an alien for immigration purposes. 

From an immigration and nationality law perspective, a few points are crucial:

• The bill uses the generic term “citizen of the United States” and does not distinguish between people who were U.S. citizens at birth in the United States, people who were U.S. citizens at birth abroad through a U.S. parent, and people who naturalized later in life. All are treated the same.
• There is no true grandfather clause for existing dual citizens. The one-year window is a grace period to make an election; after that, doing nothing is treated as voluntary relinquishment of U.S. citizenship.

That approach runs headlong into long-standing Supreme Court precedent. 

In Afroyim v. Rusk, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was intended to put citizenship “beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy,” meaning that Congress cannot take away citizenship without the citizen’s consent. 

In Vance v. Terrazas, the Supreme Court confirmed that a U.S. citizen cannot lose citizenship unless the U.S. government proves not only that the person voluntarily performed a potentially expatriating act, but also that they did so with the specific intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

By declaring that failure to file the right form within one year is “deemed” a voluntary relinquishment, the bill attempts to sidestep the need to prove actual intent in each case. That makes it very likely to face serious constitutional challenge under Afroyim and Terrazas, even if it were to pass both chambers and be signed into law.

What is driving these actions?

Politics, over more thoughtful, case-by-case assessments of risk informing policy.

The immediate driver is the National Guard shooting. Reporting in the The Wall Street Journal indicates that the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, entered as part of post-withdrawal resettlement from Afghanistan and obtained asylum earlier this year during the Trump Administration, which has made his case a flashpoint in the broader debate over refugee admissions and screening. 

In the aftermath, President Trump publicly vowed to “permanently pause migration from all third world countries.” Reuters reported that U.S. government officials have described a review of asylum decisions approved under the prior administration and a new, tougher approach to green card holders and applicants from the 19 countries already designated under Proclamation 10949. The Guardian points out that DHS Secretary Noem’s calls for a broader travel ban align with that posture, emphasizing nationality-based risk rather than individualized vetting. 

On the citizenship side, Senator Moreno’s public statements frame dual citizenship as creating “conflicts of interest and divided loyalties” and argue that American citizenship should be an “all or nothing” commitment. The timing of his bill, introduced immediately after the shooting, suggests that it is part of the same broader effort to recast immigration and citizenship policy around rigid exclusivity and security, even where the link between dual nationality and the D.C. attack is tenuous at best.

Underneath the day-to-day headlines, these moves fit into a longer trajectory in which the Trump administration seems to favor broad, categorical tools—country-based entry bans, pauses on entire classes of applications, and redefinition of who may be a citizen—over a more thought-out case-by-case assessments of risk. The Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld an earlier travel-ban proclamation under INA § 212(f), has reinforced the view inside the executive branch that, at least on entry restrictions, courts may be reluctant to second-guess the president’s national-security determinations. 

Likely impact on employees, employers, and the U.S. economy

For employers and non-U.S. citizen employees, the practical consequences of these recent actions depend heavily on nationality and where they are in the process.

Nationals of the 19 listed countries now operate under a double burden. 

Proclamation 10949 blocks most new visas and entries, with only narrow exceptions, and the post-shooting USCIS measures mean that pending applications—including adjustment of status and naturalization—may be frozen or subjected to new, more intrusive security reviews. Those already in the United States in valid nonimmigrant status can usually remain here and keep working while a petition or extension is pending, but they need to treat international travel as high-risk and consult counsel before leaving, because a new visa may not be attainable. Those abroad with approved petitions may simply have no path to a visa until policy changes.

If the travel-ban list is expanded, that pattern could suddenly apply to nationals of additional countries that matter deeply to U.S. employers—key trading partners, research hubs, or major sources of specialized talent. Even the credible possibility of expansion is enough to prompt companies to cancel or postpone international assignments, conferences, and training, and to prompt employees to decline travel that might strand them outside the United States.

Beyond the immediate human impact, the economic costs are already visible. 

The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) projects that international visitor spending in the United States will fall by about 7% in 2025—roughly $12.5 billion—putting foreign visitor spending below $169 billion and about 22% below its 2019 peak. Analysts and WTTC leadership explicitly point to new U.S. entry policies, more onerous border experiences, and political rhetoric as part of the reason travelers are choosing other destinations. That translates into lower revenue and tax receipts for hotels, restaurants, universities, entertainment venues, and local governments across the country.

On the corporate side, a growing body of research and recent reporting show that when U.S. firms cannot reliably bring high-skilled workers here, they do not necessarily hire more Americans—they move work abroad instead. A widely cited study by economist Britta Glennon finds that firms facing tighter H-1B visa caps increased foreign-affiliate employment by about 27% more than other multinationals, particularly in countries like India, China, and Canada. See, e.g., INFORMS Pubs Online. The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and others have summarized this effect: H-1B restrictions encourage offshoring of innovation and high-value work, rather than onshoring of jobs. Reuters reported recently that substantial new H-1B fees and restrictions have already led U.S. companies to accelerate plans for larger overseas teams and “global capability centers.” 

If dual citizenship were seriously curtailed, the impact would extend from firms and workers inside the U.S. to the millions of Americans living abroad. The bill’s one-year “choose or lose” rule would force U.S. citizens with another nationality—including many who were U.S. citizens at birth—to sever formal ties to their other country or give up their U.S. citizenship entirely. That would weaken the United States’ long-standing advantage of having a large, well-connected diaspora that builds trade, investment, and cultural ties, and could shift investment and tax bases toward countries that continue to welcome dual nationals.

Travel bans versus dual-citizenship laws: two very different legal paths

From a legal-process standpoint, it is important to understand how differently these two sets of measures move.

For travel and visa restrictions, the president already has broad authority under INA § 212(f) to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” and to impose “any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” whenever he finds that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. 

Proclamation 10949 itself reflects the model that any future expansion would likely follow: a presidential finding based on an inter-agency review; a proclamation specifying the countries and the classes of visas affected; and parallel guidance from the State Department, DHS, and CBP to implement the limits. No new statute is needed, and although litigation is almost certain, Trump v. Hawaii shows that courts may be deferential when the proclamation is framed in national-security and information-sharing terms.

In contrast, eliminating dual citizenship requires Congress to act and then to survive constitutional review. Senator Moreno’s bill will have to move through committee, pass the Senate, pass the House, and be signed by the President. Only then would agencies begin the complex work of writing regulations, creating new forms and databases, and figuring out how to verify who holds foreign citizenship. And because the bill attempts to declare that failure to file a renunciation within a fixed window counts as “voluntary” relinquishment, it directly implicates Afroyim and Terrazas and the Court’s insistence that citizenship is not something a “group of citizens temporarily in office” can revoke at will. 

In practical terms, this means that changes to the travel-ban framework can occur quickly by executive action, and employers and employees should plan around that reality. Changes to who may be a U.S. citizen—and whether dual nationality is allowed at all—would require a far more extended and uncertain legislative and judicial process.

For now, the most urgent needs for employers are communication and planning. Employees from the 19 travel-ban countries should be advised not to travel internationally without individualized legal advice. Employees from other countries should understand that the list could expand. Dual-national U.S. citizen employees should be reassured that, as of today, dual citizenship remains fully lawful under existing statutes and Supreme Court precedent, and the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” is still only a proposal whose constitutionality would be hotly contested if it ever moved forward.