By Ashley Mantha-Hollands
It is recognised in US law that the government may not take away a naturalized person’s citizenship except in cases of fraud or error on a naturalization application. The Supreme Court has clearly established that unless citizenship was unlawfully procured, denaturalization is unconstitutional. However, a memo issued by the Department of Justice (DoJ) in June attempts to broaden the grounds for denaturalization, potentially putting over 24.5 million naturalized US citizens at risk.
The memo states that the current US administration has directed the DoJ’s Civil Division to “advance the administration’s policy objectives”, among which is “prioritizing denaturalization”. Under this directive, the division is to investigate individuals who either “illegally procured” or “conceal[ed] a material fact” in their naturalization applications. The text outlines 10 “categories” of priority cases, which include individuals who “pose a potential danger to national security”; who “engaged in various forms of financial fraud”, including fraud associated with the Medicaid and Medicare healthcare programmes; and “any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue”.
The memo could broaden the scope of grounds previously used for denaturalization and will likely face legal challenge. Since September, the DoJ has filed denaturalization complaints against individuals for reasons such as providing false testimony and concealing identity, and for other crimes. In November, following a DoJ complaint filed in August, a US judge revoked the citizenship of a naturalized individual who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health care fraud. President Donald Trump, in a recent post on Truth Social, reaffirmed his commitment to “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquillity” and further stated, on November 30, in response to a shooting in Washington, DC, “if I have the power to do it… I would denaturalize, absolutely”.**
The DoJ memo represents a departure from 50 years of US policy between 1967 and mid-June 2017 – nearly five months into Donald Trump’s first term as president. During this period, the practice of citizenship stripping was rare and used primarily in extreme cases, such as for war criminals. In contrast, between 1906 and 1967, the US denaturalized more citizens than any other democracy. Several news and academic sources have highlighted what some see as similar motivations behind the current administration’s directive and past initiatives. It is also important to note that the DoJ memo will afford a discretion that could be much wider than in the past.
Denaturalization in the 20th Century
The original purpose of denaturalization in the US, put into force by the Naturalization Act of 1906, was to wipe out so-called “disbelievers in organized government” from society. The early cases were against political dissidents – some self-described, and some alleged socialists, anarchists and radicals – and often included journalists or labour unionists. One notable case is that of Emma Goldman, the first person to be denaturalized for her political views. Goldman was an anarchist who eventually lost her citizenship due to her activism against US involvement in the First World War. Denaturalization for political views was linked to two provisions in naturalization law: the requirement that a person have “good moral character” and that applicants be “attached to the principles of the US Constitution.”
One of the largest citizenship-stripping campaigns started in the 1940s, after the Nationality Act of 1940 gave naturalization authority to the DoJ. Once more, the primary targets were those with so-called “subversive” beliefs, particularly those with any affiliations to the Communist Party or the German American Bund. After the government denaturalized more than 22,000 people, this particular wave was halted by the Supreme Court in 1943, which declared that a person could not be denaturalized without “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” that they were planning for the violent overthrow of the government. This became a standard impossible to prove, and cases of denaturalization subsided. In 1967, the Court decided that denaturalization was altogether unconstitutional except in cases of fraud or error in a naturalization application, and since, there have been only a handful of cases per year.
The DoJ memo doesn’t refer to ideological views such as “communism” or “socialism”, although the policy manual for US Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) states that an individual may be denaturalized “if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party”. However, the first priority in the memo mentions anyone who “[poses] a potential danger to national security”, which can be broadly interpreted.
Threatening comments
In July, Trump made comments that raised questions about whether the beliefs of some naturalized individuals may put them at risk. These comments were about New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and actor Rosie O’Donnell. After US Congressman Andy Ogles threatened Mamdani, then a mayoral candidate, with a denaturalization investigation for rap lyrics Mamdani wrote in 2017 that Ogles viewed as “publicly praising” individuals convicted of supporting the militant Palestinian group Hamas, Trump said “a lot of people are saying he’s here illegally” and “we’re going to look at everything”. And the president threatened the birthright citizenship of O’Donnell, who was born in New York, saying that she “is not in the best interests of our Great Country”. Because O’Donnell is a natural-born citizen, there is no provision in US law to revoke her citizenship unless she provides her explicit consent. It’s also worth noting that Trump said he would “take a look” into the question of deporting billionaire Elon Musk, who became a naturalized citizen in 2002, after the Tesla CEO criticised the spending bill that passed into law in early July.“
Threatening denaturalization for opinions or statements, that while perhaps controversial are peaceful, reaches much further than the historical standard of believing in the “violent takeover of government” used to start a denaturalization proceeding in the past. Such threats generate a climate of fear where certain individuals and groups may be scared to voice opinions out of the threat of ending up in a denaturalization trial.
The expanded notion of ‘fraudulent acquisition’
Since 1967, fraudulent acquisition of citizenship has been the exclusive justification for denaturalization. Up until recently, this has been interpreted as a nondisclosure of information on a naturalization application that would have impacted the outcome of the application.
There has been an increasing number of investigations of fraudulent acquisition since 2008, the year that saw “Operation Janus”. This Obama-era policy targeted individuals who had been sent a deportation letter as an immigrant but had subsequently naturalized using a different name. The main driver was the digitization of records and fingerprint testing, which made it easier to identify discrepancies. In 2016, Trump expanded the operation to allow USCIS to investigate over 700,000 cases, marking the first push to “revive denaturalization”.
As scholars have argued, identifying fraud or a mistake is not always clear cut. For example, the US naturalization form asks whether a person has ever committed a crime, but does not specify what is included in its definition of a crime. It is unknown whether a crime committed in another jurisdiction that is not a crime under US law would count. This could have implications for same-sex couples or trans persons who come from countries where their status is illegal – such as in Uganda.
The June DoJ memo further expands what is considered as fraud for denaturalization to include instances of “loan fraud” or “Medicaid/Medicare fraud.” These types of fraud would likely not have previously met the standard of “willful misrepresentation” or “concealing material fact” that would have impacted the outcome of the naturalization process, since they are not related to a person’s immigration history.
Looking at denaturalization through the lens of race
While the memo does not mention race or ethnicity, some lawyers and legal scholars are concerned that, read alongside other developments in the current administration’s management of immigration, it will disproportionately affect certain minority and low-income communities.
Historically, race has been an explicit factor in immigration and denaturalization. Up until 1952, US citizenship law stated that only “white persons, persons of African nativity or descent, and descendants of races indigenous to the Western hemisphere” could be naturalized. In the 1920s, more than 50 naturalized individuals of Indian origin had their citizenship revoked after the Supreme Court decided that people from India were not “white” in “the understanding of the common man”
The DoJ memo came nearly three months after the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelan men with tenuous or non-existent ties to gangs or drug cartels, and nearly two months before a Supreme Court decision that allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to use racial profiling in immigration raids in Los Angeles.
Some human rights groups and journalists have compared ICE immigration enforcement to how the US “War on Drugs” fuelled the mass incarceration of certain low-income and minority groups. As Sarah Tosh, a professor at Rutgers University, wrote in 2021, “these processes draw from a long history of targeted drug enforcement that has served to scapegoat, punish, and exclude immigrants and native-born racial minorities”.
Repeat of history or something bigger?
Unlike some European countries, the US previously had strong safeguards against denaturalization since the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling. Since the end of September, the government has filed at least thirteen denaturalization actions (exact numbers are not publicly available), 11 of these actions were filed and publicly disclosed between September 30 and January 20, 2025, the beginning of Trump’s second term.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that passed in July allocated more than $3 billion in additional funds to the DoJ to exercise the administration’s immigration priorities – such as hiring immigration judges, staffing, and investigations.
The expansion of the potential grounds for denaturalization, the upcoming Supreme Court review of birthright citizenship, and even Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno’s recently proposed legislation to ban dual citizenship mark the potential for some of the most fundamental shifts in US citizenship to date. While some have rightly made the connection between present and past denaturalization initiatives, it remains to be seen how the Justice Department will make use of the memo’s criteria for denaturalization during the rest of Trump’s mandate.
Ashley Mantha-Hollands is Max Weber Fellow in the Max Weber Programme for Postdoctoral Studies at the European University Institute.
PaulT says
A prudent naturalized citizen would refrain from comment on this article for fear of being accused by Trump’s lackeys at the DOJ of ‘undermining domestic tranquillity’.
The hell with that.
The DOJ memo on targets for denaturalizatip covers “categories” of priority cases …. include “individuals who “pose a potential danger to national security”
This week in response to a court case over White House East Wing demolition filed by the National Trust For Historic Preservation, the DOJ claimeded that any delay in the construction of Trump’s $400 million vanity ballroom project would be a ‘potential danger to national security’.
Foreign students who took part in protests over the atrocities in Gaza lost their visas and were deported as a
‘potential dangers to national security.
In Trump’s stated view Rosie O’Donnell, Zobran Mamdani and Rep. Ilhan Omar are a ‘potential dangers to national security’.
The world has gone mad so I rest my case. Let the axe fall if it must.
Laurel says
It is legal for the President of the United States to claim an action as “a potential danger to national security.” I believe this has been used during World War One, World War Two and the Vietnam War. That can be fact checked, please. But what is happening now is, Trump uses that claim for everything he wants to change by skirting around the law. It is disingenuous at best. He continuously abuses our system, our laws and our Constitution. Therefore, he continuously abuses us.
Paul Smith says
I agree, Trump is pushing the interpretation of the law in order to protect the country, you, and national sovereignty. The courts and Congress will decide if his actions are reasonable and legal under the law.
Paul Smith says
I don’t know what you mean by ‘let the axe fall’ but I, representing the the vast majority of those who voted for him, stand with Trump on everything you outline above that except the first two sentences which are BS. Citizens, no matter how citizenship was acquired, have a right to protest. They do NOT, however, have a right to riot or to cross barricades/attack law enforcement officers and especially those who were naturalized should leave before they get caught up in the mob and get arrested for felonies.
Sherry says
@paul. . . switching from Fox, Newsmax and seeking truth through researching credentialled facts would hopefully be of great benefit to you. Starting with the fact that trump did NOT win by a landslide and with the fact that polling indicates that the majority of those polled (in almost each and every poll) indicate that he is doing a very poor job. . . especially on his immigration tactics and the economy.
Paul Smith says
Opinion noted. Trump is doing the job he promised to do and we like it. Three more years…hopefully we can keep you and yours out afterward. You need to get your socialist and suicidal tendencies in check.
Sherry says
As previously posted by Laurel. . . Each and every American should pay attention to this very compelling message from Germany:
https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/a-letter-to-america/
Paul Smith says
When the only tool you have available is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I disagree with much of what is written in that letter. I am not impressed.
Laurel says
Paul Smith: I get it, you would rather learn from first hand experience. Many of us, however, prefer to know a little about history, to prevent repeating it.
Paul Smith says
I’m not sure what it is you think you get. Intelligent people know history but they are not ignorant of the lessons from experience or knowledge gleaned from commonsense evaluation of today’s realities. We tried isolationism in the past and it was a dismal and very expensive failure. The World has only gotten smaller since then. War is not always avoidable and we need to work much harder not to lose more allies.
Laurel says
I’m not sure what you wrote had to do with the letter, reminding us what Germany learned the hard way.
I do agree with you that we do not want to lose more allies.
Paul Smith says
Nothing. Confusion reigns. lol
Paul Smith says
We are a sovereign nation. Our borders should be secure and our laws should be enforced. We seek immigration. We welcome immigration. We do not seek criminals or those who would take advantage of our system to undermine us. Nationalization is a privilege, not a right. Obey our laws or lose the privilege. China is an existential enemy; Chinese should not get that privilege.
Pierre Tristam says
We are not robots. We are not cruel (or ought not be). We are not xenophobes (or ought not be). You are an immigrant. Your ancestors enslaved people, raped them and stole land. The least you can do is extend the courtesy of asylum to immigrants who are making your life better. Yes, the “illegal ones.” Your house isn’t even glass. And you don’t even realize that the the stones you think you’re throwing are boomerangs.
Sherry says
Brilliant Pierre. . . simply brilliant! Thank You!
Paul Smith says
We are a nation of laws. Had we followed our laws we would not be in this basket but the left couldn’t be satisfied with they laws they helped pass. Asylum has a set of rules and they do NOT apply to people who invaded our country illegally. NO ASYLUM FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. Send them home and let them start over.
Laurel says
“invasion
/ĭn-vā′zhən/
noun
The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
The entry into bodily tissue and subsequent proliferation of an injurious entity, such as a pathogen or tumor.
An intrusion or encroachment.
“Your reading her diary was an invasion of her privacy.”
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
Naturalized citizens are not an invasion. Don’t buy Trump’s erroneous vitriol.
Paul Smith says
Naturalized citizens are not an invasion. Millions of illegal aliens crossing our borders without permission is an invasion just as your home can be invaded by criminals.
King yemma says
Look at that someone that actually make sense that’s kinda rare in these comments
Laurel says
King yemma: I prefer sense that is well done.
Paul Smith says
Where it is warranted, certainly, but it is not guaranteed. Legally at a port of entry and you’ll get every consideration. Illegally in the dead of night sneaking across our borders and you get a boot in the ass.
Laurel says
Paul Smith: No, that’s not our history.
Paul Smith says
But it should be our future.
Sherry says
@paul. . . did you not even “read” the article? Your lord and master is doing his evil best to get rid of immigrants/refugees that are here “LEGALLY”! To take away the “LEGAL CITIZENSHIP” they “lEGALLY”qualified for and were granted!!!
Meanwhile, all you can do is harp on and on about those who perhaps snuck over the border. There but for the grace of a higher power go each one of us. We were blessed by the happenstance of our birthplace and skin color.
Yes, absolutely, those committing actual crimes in the US should be held accountable, regardless of their immigration status. Starting with trump! He was found “criminally” guilty of “LYING”. . . over 30 counts of fraud. Where is his penalty?
Meanwhile refugees who have lived here as hard working, law abiding, citizens for many years. . . some married to American citizens. . . some with children born in the US. . . are being hunted down, abused, thrown into concentration camps with “NO” oversight allowed! This treatment of other human beings “IS UNAMERICAN”!
Paul Smith says
Denaturalization? If a naturalized alien violates the laws, that can and has happened. Trump is trying to broaden the laws to denaturalize citizens who are subversive and dangerous. That may or may not fly with the courts and will almost certainly require action by Congress. I agree with his effort to change birthright citizenship. We do not follow the expressed wishes of those who wrote the 14th Amendment. Trump is testing the law but he has not broken them.
Paragraph 2. Nothing to discuss. Emotions.
Paragraph 3. We agree then. Trump’s actions were adjudicated. Based on testimony from the banks involved, the courts found that there was no material damage and, therefore, no penalties. That’s history – get over it.
Paragraph 4. More emotion. If you are here illegally you are forever subject to deportation and should be a model ‘citizen’. Every case I have seen, which is very rare, have been those who have violated other laws. ICE isn’t running around arresting every brown, black, yellow person they find.
You need to get your facts straight and your emotions in check.
Skibum says
If there is any widespread, government led denaturalization effort in America, not one single naturalized citizen should be target until after Melania Trump’s citizenship is taken away and she is sent packing back to Slovenia! Only then can Americans start the conversation about who among us should be next.
Paul Smith says
I know of nothing that Melania has done that would jeopardize her citizenship.
Deborah Coffey says
Epstein files, please….
Laurel says
Paul Smith: So, you know nothing that Melania has done that would jeopardize her citizenship. Point being, you admittedly don’t know.
Skibum says
Who says she has to actually do anything to have her naturalized citizenship revoked? The convicted felon president has threatened to revoke citizenship from both naturalized AND American born citizens he doesn’t like. Take Rosie O’Donnell, a fierce critic of the president, who now lives in Ireland. The orange menace has threatened numerous times to have her citizenship revoked, just because. And Ilhan Omar, elected member of Congress from Minnesota. The president has repeatedly targeted her for removal from the U.S., wanting to have her stripped of U.S. citizenship and shipped to Somalia, just because she is outspoken against him particularly regarding his his ICE purges in her state.
The U.S. government estimates there are 26 million naturalized citizens here in the U.S. Who knows how many of them disagree with the felon president and his administration. You don’t have to have committed any crime at all for him to target you under his “retribution” regime and threaten to have you removed from this country because he doesn’t like you, or because you are too outspoken, or just one of those individuals who happened to come from what he continues to call “shithole countries”.
Paul Smith says
That’s BS. Trump has not threatened to revoke citizenship from any citizen simply because he doesn’t like them. There is no chance the law would allow that. That said, both natural born and naturalized citizens can lose their citizenship under the law so it’s pretty important that everybody knows what the law says. Trump can’t take Rosie’s citizenship and he knows it which is why he hasn’t attempted to do it. Ilhan is a different story. She clearly defrauded the country and she is subversive. She should lose her citizenship. I’m disappointed that action hasn’t been taken to do that.
No citizen has to agree with the president and every citizen has a right to protest and petition. Trump can take no action against citizens who do that so long as they do it legally. Citizens are NOT permitted to riot, to accost law enforcement/cross barriers, to destroy private property or to protest illegally (block freeways/streets, interrupt church services, invade government/educational/media offices, etc).
Can naturalized citizens be stripped of their citizenship for certain felonious activities? That is the purview of the courts and Congress. We’ll see but Trump cannot do that without that support.
Paul Smith says
What about them?
Sherry says
Trying to reason with people who present ZERO credible facts, and are so thoroughly Maga indoctrinated into their “alternative reality” is a complete waste of my treasured time. Over and out!
Richard Fay says
Folks, I am finding it hard to resist and I may be violating my own advice but here goes: Feeding trolls keeps them alive – the vitriol will extinguish based on its vapidness.
Richard