Can Trump Take Away My Citizenship: Denaturalization in 2025

Trump’s Immigration Crackdown: Denaturalization is Back

President-elect Donald Trump has doubled down on one of his most outrageous campaign promises: deporting 15 million people, including some who are already naturalized U.S. citizens. While it may be virtually impossible to implement Trump’s grandiose ambitions due to the logistical and financial challenges of deporting millions, his administration will still devastate countless lives, including those who thought their citizenship was forever. This broadening of denaturalization efforts challenges the traditional understanding of citizenship’s permanence, raising concerns about the security of naturalized citizens and the extreme consequences for individuals and families who may suddenly face loss of citizenship and deportation.

Among the tools at their disposal is the obscure judicial process of denaturalization—revoking citizenship granted to immigrants—making naturalized Americans deportable. Historically, this process has been used sparingly, primarily in extreme cases involving national security threats or egregious fraud. One notable example is a denaturalization effort called Operation Second Look, launched under the Trump administration to investigate and potentially revoke citizenship from those suspected of obtaining it through fraud or misrepresentation.

Going Beyond Terrorism and War Crimes

Becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen is supposed to mean you get all the rights and protections of citizenship. But the Department of Justice (DOJ) can take that away if they can prove fraud or misrepresentation during the naturalization process. Historically, it was used sparingly and only in extreme cases, like targeting accused terrorists and individuals convicted of serious crimes such as terrorism, war crimes, or human rights violations—distinct from cases involving minor errors or bureaucratic issues.

Under the first Trump administration, this rarely used power is getting new attention, and what does it mean to be “truly American” and naturalized citizens are getting nervous.

This is a big expansion of immigration enforcement and has huge implications for immigrant communities and the entire legal system.

Most naturalized citizens will not be affected by Trump’s renewed efforts to denaturalize. However, critics warn that aggressive denaturalization policies create a chilling effect on naturalized citizens and may violate due process, leaving many feeling insecure about their status.

Who’s at Risk?

But those who naturalized by providing false material information (like not disclosing criminal history or obtaining citizenship under false identity) will be at greater risk.

An accused defendant in a denaturalization case is someone who has been formally charged with fraud or misrepresentation during the naturalization process.

Likely Targets

Those who didn’t disclose past deportation orders or criminal convictions, including a previous conviction that was not revealed during the naturalization process.
Those who naturalized under false identities.
Naturalized citizens who committed crimes before they were citizens (and didn’t disclose).

What is Denaturalization?

Denaturalization is the legal process of taking away an individual’s U.S. citizenship. Established in 1906, this process allows the government to revoke citizenship if it was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, intentional omission, fraudulent omissions, or material omission that would have precluded naturalization.

This process allows authorities to strip citizenship from individuals who:

Illegally Obtained Citizenship: Failing to meet the requirements.
Committed Fraud or Misrepresentation: Hiding or lying about material facts in the naturalization process, including intentional omission or fraudulent omissions of material facts.

Denaturalization requires the government to prove an individual obtained citizenship by fraud or misrepresentation. Specifically:

Willful Concealment: The applicant intentionally misrepresented or withheld information.
Material Fact: The concealed fact would have made them ineligible for naturalization.

Until the first Trump administration, naturalization was rare and historically targeted serious offenders like war crimes or terrorism.

But someone like Elon Musk, whom many have speculated about his immigration journey, including allegations of working illegally on a student visa, could theoretically be at risk of denaturalization if he illegally worked in the U.S. while on an F-1 student visa, if he intentionally lied about that work, and if that unlawful employment would have made him ineligible for his green card and therefore citizenship.

Fear is part of the strategy

While denaturalization cases are few, the denaturalization efforts may be part of a broader strategy to scare immigrant communities and deter naturalization. Critics have also argued that the Trump administration’s aggressive denaturalization policies could be used as a tool for political intimidation against opponents.

There is also a risk that an overzealous investigation could result in innocent citizens being wrongly targeted for denaturalization.

What’s next for immigration under Trump?

Experts say a second Trump administration will double down on policies to reduce both legal and illegal immigration.

Trump investigators are expected to play a key role in identifying and pursuing denaturalization cases.

Expected tactics

Supercharged Denaturalization: Will expand despite the small number of cases compared to overall immigrant population, with the ultimate goal to begin deporting individuals whose citizenship is revoked.
Legislative Changes: Will try to limit family-based immigration and visa programs.
More Enforcement: More focus on investigating old applications for fraud.

How Denaturalization Works

Investigation:

Federal authorities review visa and citizenship applications for inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or omissions. Investigations often focus on purported fraud in naturalization applications, where suspicions or allegations may arise even if not all discrepancies indicate actual fraud.

“Material” misstatements—those that if known would have prevented the applicant from becoming a citizen—are grounds for denaturalization.

Filing a Case:

Denaturalization cases are filed in federal court where the government must prove its claims. Unlike criminal cases, defendants do not have the right to appointed counsel, raising concerns among legal experts about the lack of due process protections in these civil matters.

It is important to note that not every discrepancy in an application is evidence of fraud or grounds for denaturalization. Minor errors or inconsistencies can occur without malicious intent.

Outcome:

If successful, citizenship is revoked and the individual reverts to their prior immigration status. In most cases, this makes them deportable, and a deportation order may be issued if the individual has no other legal status after denaturalization.

Denaturalization Facts

Denaturalization does not result in deportation. Instead, the individual reverts to their prior immigration status, such as a green card holder. But green card holders can be deported for certain crimes.
The DOJ must prove its case in federal court as denaturalization requires judicial approval.
As mentioned above, this process has historically been reserved for the most serious cases, such as terrorism, war crimes or significant fraud. Additionally, the denaturalization of a naturalized parent could affect the citizenship status of their children, potentially leaving them vulnerable to losing their rights.
However, aggressive denaturalization efforts risk targeting legitimate citizens who have done nothing wrong, leading to unjust outcomes for those who are lawfully entitled to their citizenship.

Why Naturalized Citizens?

Under Trump’s plan, naturalized citizens are not exempt from the administration’s broader deportation plans. Trump administration officials, particularly Stephen Miller, have been saying they will use denaturalization to expand enforcement beyond undocumented immigrants, idealizing past immigration policies from the 1920s to emphasize a cultural element in defining true membership in America.

The administration is particularly focused on immigrants suspected of fraud or misrepresentation, targeting those whose citizenship status may be questioned due to concerns about the legitimacy of their naturalization process.

The Strategy

Expand Enforcement: Trump’s team will investigate tens of thousands of naturalized citizens for revocation.
Broaden Criteria: No more limitations on cases. Even small mistakes on applications will be grounds for denaturalization.
Revive “Operation Second Look”: This from Trump’s first term will supercharge denaturalization by reviewing old cases for any discrepancies, regardless of intent or harm.

There are now hundreds of active denaturalization cases under review, reflecting the scale of current government investigations.

The Philosophy

Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s immigration policies, has called for a “supercharged” denaturalization process. He says every inconsistency, no matter how small or unintentional, should be scrutinized to see if citizenship was granted improperly. Miller’s obsessive denaturalization campaign was a targeted effort to revoke the naturalized citizenship of certain immigrants, especially those suspected of fraud or misrepresentation, shaping stricter immigration policies and increasing the risk of deportation for many. His phrase “America is for Americans only” is a deeply exclusionary approach to immigration. Critics argue that denaturalization actions can be politicized, potentially using citizenship revocation as a tool against political opponents.

Denaturalization Consequences

The effects of denaturalization go far beyond the individual who loses citizenship. The ripples impact families, communities and the very fabric of U.S. immigration policy.

Invalidating naturalization can have far-reaching effects on individuals and their families, often resulting in loss of rights, separation, and long-term uncertainty.

1. Individual Consequences

Loss of Citizenship: Revocation makes individuals deportable and strips them of their rights and privileges as U.S. citizens.
Legal Vulnerability: Without citizenship individuals can’t vote, hold certain jobs or sponsor family members for immigration.
Financial Burden: Defending against denaturalization requires expensive legal representation which many can’t afford. Without guaranteed counsel defendants are at a huge disadvantage.

2. Family Consequences

Naturalized Children: Minors who became citizens through their parents’ applications will lose their status if their parents are denaturalized.
American Born Children: Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship so children born to immigrant parents will be stateless if their parents are denaturalized.

3. Psychological Harm

Even if you successfully defend your citizenship or even successfully defeat a denaturalization case, the process causes lasting harm:

Stress and Fear: The possibility of losing your citizenship erodes your sense of belonging and security.
Second Class Citizenship: Millions of naturalized Americans will start to feel like second class citizens, unsure of their status. The fear of denaturalization will erode their sense of permanence and equality.

4. Wider Social Consequences

As journalist Masha Gessen has written, a mass denaturalization campaign will create a system where immigrants live under constant suspicion, undermining trust in the U.S. immigration process and the American dream.

Recent DOJ Denaturalization Cases (2024–2025)

1. United States v. Duke – Sex Crimes and Concealment of Criminal Conduct

In June 2025, the Department of Justice secured the revocation of U.S. citizenship from a Louisiana man known as Duke, a convicted distributor of child sexual abuse material. This was a successful denaturalization case under the Trump administration. Prosecutors alleged that Duke fraudulently obtained naturalization by concealing his preexisting criminal behavior during the application process.

The federal court order, entered on June 13, 2025, marked one of the first successful denaturalizations under the Trump administration’s expanded policy (see DOJ press release). The case underscores DOJ’s focus on sex crimes as a priority category in the 2025 Civil Division memo.

2. United States v. Bosnian Soldier – War Crimes and Human Rights Violations

In July 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denaturalization of a former Bosnian soldier who concealed his role in wartime atrocities during his immigration process.

Similar cases have involved situations where a Palestinian guerrilla gained U.S. citizenship by concealing their militant background, illustrating the types of individuals targeted in denaturalization efforts.

The DOJ alleged the individual misrepresented his past participation in human rights abuses, including attacks on civilians, when applying for refugee status and later for U.S. citizenship.

On appeal, the court affirmed the revocation, concluding that the omissions were material and intentional (see DOJ appellate ruling announcement).

This ruling reinforced DOJ’s authority to target war crimes and genocide cases under its expanded 2025 enforcement priorities.

3. United States v. Moio Bartolini – Immigration Fraud and False Testimony

In late 2025, DOJ filed a civil denaturalization complaint against Moio Bartolini, alleging that he lied under oath during his naturalization interview and was never lawfully admitted as a permanent resident.

According to the filing, Bartolini provided false testimony and concealed material facts, rendering his citizenship “illegally procured” (see DOJ filing summary).

This case demonstrates the administration’s willingness to pursue interview-based misrepresentation cases, even without accompanying criminal charges.

4. Multi-State Filings – Identity Fraud and Concealment of Prior Deportations

The DOJ also filed multiple denaturalization complaints in Florida, Connecticut, and New Jersey against individuals accused of using false identities and concealing prior deportation orders when applying for citizenship.

In these cases, prosecutors allege that defendants assumed alternate names to bypass removal records and then naturalized under fraudulent identities.

These coordinated actions show DOJ’s renewed emphasis on fraud-based revocations and use of cross-state enforcement to expand case volume (see policy tracker overview).

Deportation hardliners within the administration have prioritized pursuing these types of cases.

5. Broader Enforcement Context under the 2025 Memo

All four cases reflect the “priority categories” established by the June 2025 DOJ memo, including sex offenses, fraud and misrepresentation, and human rights violations.

The Duke case is widely cited as the first major test of the policy, while the Bosnian case illustrates judicial deference to revocations involving grave international crimes. Legal observers note that courts remain skeptical of minor or procedural denaturalization efforts, upholding only material, proven frauds (see Washington Post analysis).

This marks a new denaturalization effort, with expanded priorities and a renewed focus on aggressively pursuing cases under the current administration.

Attorney Richard Herman: “Recent DOJ actions — including United States v. Duke, United States v. Bartolini, and a Bosnian war crimes case — reveal Trump’s 2025 strategy to expand denaturalization in categories like sex offenses, fraud, and human rights abuses. Courts have upheld revocations only when material fraud is proven.”

Myth vs. Reality: Trump’s 2025 Push to Expand Denaturalization

Myth #1: Trump can strip anyone’s U.S. citizenship by executive order.

Reality:
The President cannot unilaterally revoke citizenship. Denaturalization is strictly governed by federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1451) and must go through federal court proceedings.

Even in denaturalization cases, the government must prove fraud or material misrepresentation with clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence.

Courts have consistently ruled — including in Afroyim v. Rusk and Maslenjak v. United States — that citizenship cannot be taken away lightly or for political reasons.

Myth #2: Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship automatically cancels existing U.S. citizens.

Reality:
The 2025 Executive Order 14160 sought to redefine birthright citizenship, but it cannot retroactively revoke citizenship already granted under the 14th Amendment.

The order’s implementation is being challenged in court, and federal judges have blocked its application pending review.

Existing U.S. citizens — whether born here or naturalized — remain protected under the Constitution.

Myth #3: The DOJ can now mass-denaturalize thousands of people at once.

Reality:
Despite the June 2025 DOJ memo calling denaturalization a “top priority,” large-scale revocations are not legally or logistically possible.

Each case requires individual proof, judicial review, and due process.
Historically, fewer than a dozen denaturalization judgments occurred annually; even with expanded enforcement, most experts expect only a modest increase.

Civil liberties groups note the policy’s deterrent symbolism, not mass revocation capability.

Myth #4: Small mistakes or typos in immigration forms can get you denaturalized.

Reality:
Under the Supreme Court’s Maslenjak decision, only material misrepresentations — those that would have changed the outcome of naturalization — can lead to denaturalization.

Minor errors, omissions, or misunderstandings do not qualify.

The government must prove that an intentional deception occurred and that citizenship would have been denied had the truth been known.

Myth #5: Natural-born citizens could lose citizenship under Trump’s policy.

Reality:
Natural-born citizens (those born on U.S. soil) cannot be denaturalized because they were never “naturalized.” This distinction ensures that denaturalization does not apply to native-born citizens, who are protected under the 14th Amendment.

They are protected under the 14th Amendment, and no executive or congressional act can revoke that status without violating constitutional law.

Any attempt to do so would face immediate and certain invalidation by the courts.

Myth #6: Denaturalization is a criminal punishment.

Reality:
It is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one.

That means no jail sentence, but also no automatic right to a court-appointed attorney.

The government must file suit in federal court, and the individual can contest the allegations, appeal rulings, and raise constitutional defenses.

Myth #7: The 2025 denaturalization agenda only targets terrorists or human rights violators.

Reality:
While the DOJ memo lists national security and war crimes among top categories, it also includes broad and vague categories like “fraud,” “misrepresentation,” and “other important cases.”

That flexibility could open doors for selective or politically motivated enforcement.

Civil rights groups warn the categories are so wide they could capture ordinary citizens, not just extreme cases.

Myth #8: If someone is denaturalized, they automatically lose their green card too.

Reality:
Yes — citizenship revocation restores prior immigration status.

A denaturalized individual reverts to their last lawful permanent resident (LPR) or nonimmigrant status.
If that status no longer exists or was obtained fraudulently, the individual may become removable (deportable).

However, each outcome depends on case-specific facts and can be contested in immigration court.

Myth #9: Trump’s DOJ can use AI to find “hidden fraud” in old naturalization files.

Reality:
While the DHS and DOJ have experimented with AI-based screening, algorithms cannot replace legal proof.

Every denaturalization case must still go through a court process and meet evidentiary standards.

AI tools may flag anomalies, but false positives or biased data would not satisfy constitutional due process.

Myth #10: Immigrants who criticize Trump risk losing citizenship.

Reality:
Political speech is constitutionally protected, even for naturalized citizens.

There is no lawful basis for denaturalizing someone over speech, protest, or dissent.

However, civil liberties advocates worry about chilling effects — that broad discretionary powers could intimidate immigrant voices or lead to selective targeting. Legal watchdogs are monitoring enforcement to ensure First Amendment protections are upheld.

Myth #11: Denaturalization can happen instantly, without notice.

Reality:
No. A denaturalization case begins with a formal complaint in federal court, and the citizen must be served, allowed to respond, and present evidence.

Judges, not agencies, issue denaturalization orders.
The process can take months or years, and every decision is appealable.

Myth #12: Trump’s second term has already created new laws allowing denaturalization for minor crimes.

Reality:
As of late 2025, no new statute has been enacted expanding grounds for denaturalization.

Only Congress can change those laws — not the President or DOJ.

All existing cases still rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), which limits denaturalization to fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment in obtaining citizenship.
Any broader attempt would require legislation and judicial approval.

Myth #13: Denaturalization efforts mainly affect recent immigrants.

Reality:
Not necessarily. The DOJ memo allows retroactive review of any naturalization record, no matter how old.

That means even citizens naturalized decades ago could, in theory, be investigated — though practical and legal limits (such as stale evidence and fairness doctrines) make that rare.
Legal scholars emphasize that longtime citizens remain highly protected under precedent.

Myth #14: Once denaturalized, there is no way to fight back.

Reality:
Denaturalized individuals retain the right to appeal to federal appellate courts.

They can challenge the decision on evidence, procedure, or constitutional grounds.
Many cases are overturned because of government errors, lack of materiality, or due process violations.

Legal advocacy organizations often step in to provide representation and media visibility.

Myth #15: Trump’s 2025 push marks the first time the U.S. has used denaturalization aggressively.

Reality:
Denaturalization has been used before — during the World War II and Cold War eras — but never on a systemic scale.

Trump’s second term marks the most visible effort since 1945 to formalize and prioritize citizenship revocation as an enforcement tool.

However, constitutional limits remain unchanged — meaning mass revocations are still legally improbable.

Myth #16: Congress or courts can’t stop denaturalization once Trump orders it.

Reality:
Congress holds oversight and funding power, and federal courts hold final review authority.
Judges can block, delay, or strike down unconstitutional policies.

If the administration overreaches, courts can issue injunctions, as they did against EO 14160 on birthright citizenship.

Checks and balances remain fully operative.

Myth #17: Trump’s “Protecting Citizenship” plan targets all naturalized Americans.

Reality:
The plan’s rhetoric is broad, but the legal reality is narrow.

Only those who lied or concealed material facts during naturalization are legally vulnerable.
Still, critics argue that vague language about “protecting citizenship integrity” can stoke fear and confusion among immigrant communities.

Myth #18: Losing citizenship automatically leads to deportation.

Reality:
Not always. Some denaturalized individuals may still have valid underlying visas or LPR status.
Others may qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT.

Each case must be individually adjudicated in immigration court.

Myth #19: Denaturalization violates the Constitution.

Reality:
Not per se — the Supreme Court has upheld denaturalization if based on proven fraud or material misrepresentation.

However, selective, arbitrary, or politically motivated denaturalization would violate equal protection and due process.
Courts scrutinize these cases heavily to prevent abuse.

Myth #20: There’s nothing citizens can do to protect themselves.

Reality:
Citizens can:

Review their naturalization records for accuracy.
Consult immigration counsel if concerned about past errors.
Keep updated documents and transcripts of naturalization.
Engage with advocacy organizations monitoring policy changes.

Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney: “Trump’s 2025 denaturalization agenda cannot override constitutional protections. Only courts can revoke citizenship — and only when the government proves fraud or material misrepresentation beyond doubt.”

Why Should All Americans Care?

Denaturalization raises the question: what does it mean to be American and is citizenship really permanent?

1. Citizenship as a Firewall

Citizenship has always been seen as a barrier to deportation and a sign of full membership in American society. This effort blows that firewall apart.

2. Immigration Policy

The Trump administration’s rhetoric ties Americanness to culture or race, just like the restrictive immigration policies of the early 20th century. Critics say this undermines the idea of America as a nation of immigrants.

3. Second Class Citizens

Masha Gessen, a journalist and critic, says the denaturalization task force is telling naturalized citizens they are “second class citizens” living under a cloud of conditional acceptance.

History

Denaturalization has a long and uneven history in the United States. Historically, serving in foreign armed forces has been grounds for denaturalization, reflecting concerns about loyalty and national security. Understanding its past helps us understand the current threat to naturalized citizens.

1906 to Mid 20th Century: Setting the Precedent

It was first codified in 1906 to revoke citizenship obtained by fraud.
Denaturalization peaked during the World Wars and early Cold War.
It was often used for political reasons, targeting individuals accused of disloyalty or radical political activity. For example:
Emma Goldman, an anarchist and pacifist, was denaturalized during World War I for opposing the war.
Naturalized citizens who joined Communist or Nazi organizations were denaturalized in the 1930s and 1940s.

Late 20th Century: Targeted Use

Denaturalization was rare and focused on:
War criminals
Terrorists
Human rights abusers
Cases required evidence of deliberate fraud that would have prevented naturalization.

Post 1967 Restrictions

The Supreme Court’s decision in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) held that citizenship is a right, not a privilege and can’t be revoked for post naturalization behavior. Denaturalization could only be pursued if citizenship was fraudulently obtained in the first place.

21st Century: New Focus

Under the Obama administration denaturalization was rare but used for severe cases, such as individuals concealing violent criminal histories.
Example: Rasmea Odeh who failed to disclose a bombing conviction in Israel lost her citizenship.

Trump’s First Term: Operation Second Look

Trump’s Department of Justice expanded denaturalization efforts big time.
Key Moves:
Hired dozens of new agents to review naturalization applications.
Increased cases from a few dozen a year to thousands.
Targeted individuals whose infractions caused little or no harm.

Biden Administration’s Response

On February 2, 2021 President Joe Biden signed an executive order to review and potentially reverse denaturalization. The order directed the attorney general and secretaries of state and homeland security to:

Review Policies and Practices: Not use denaturalization and passport revocation excessively or unfairly.
Promote Fairness: Re-examine denaturalization cases from the Trump era to see if they met the principles of justice and due process.

Advocacy and Reform

Immigrant rights orgs called it a “good first step” but said more is needed to restore trust in the system.
Advocates are calling for:
Full reversal of denaturalization policies from the Trump administration.
More transparency and oversight to prevent denaturalization abuse in the future.

Trump’s Denaturalization Task Force

During Trump’s first term denaturalization efforts expanded big time with resources shifted to review old naturalization cases for fraud. This included high profile initiatives like Operation Janus and Operation Second Look to find cases where individuals may have hidden information during the naturalization process.

At this time, Trump investigators appeared primed to expand denaturalization efforts through new task forces.

In June 2018 USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna announced the creation of a denaturalization task force to investigate naturalized citizens. This was an expansion of Operation Janus, a long running program to target individuals who obtained citizenship fraudulently.

What is Operation Janus?

Began in the 2000s Operation Janus reviewed hundreds of thousands of naturalization files to find individuals with past deportation orders or criminal records under other names.
In 2017 the DOJ filed its first lawsuits under this program against individuals who used fake identities to get citizenship.
The denaturalization task force is an expansion of these efforts, targeting thousands of cases found by Operation Janus.

Trump’s first administration diverted resources from new immigration applications to old cases:

Trump Era

2018: Then-USCIS Director Francis Cissna said they would refer 1,600 naturalization fraud cases to the DOJ.
2019: ICE shifted over $200 million to denaturalization efforts.
Operation Janus uncovered old fingerprint files and found 858 cases of individuals who got citizenship despite having prior deportation orders or criminal records.
2020: The DOJ launched a denaturalization initiative and filed cases in federal court.
Statistical Context:
Between 2008 and 2020 the DOJ filed 228 denaturalization cases, 94 of them during the first three years of Trump’s presidency.
Denaturalization became harder to prove after the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Maslenjak v. United States which raised the standard of proof for fraud in naturalization applications.

Case Study: Norma Borgono

One example of denaturalization under the Trump administration is Norma Borgono, a 63 year old Peruvian grandmother living in Miami. She became a U.S. citizen in 2007 but was later implicated in a mail fraud scheme through her work. Although she cooperated with authorities and did house arrest, the DOJ said she failed to disclose the criminal activity during the naturalization process. That omission, according to the government, was fraud and made her citizenship invalid.

This case shows how far the administration is willing to go, focusing on past crimes or omissions even if they weren’t intentional or material to the naturalization process.

Trump’s Expanded Approach

Previous administrations focused on national security and human rights cases. Trump’s administration expanded denaturalization to include crimes that occurred before naturalization but weren’t disclosed during the application process. This has a chilling effect on naturalized citizens.

Trump

Broader Targets: Cases include individuals with lesser offenses such as omissions of minor past crimes or activities unrelated to their citizenship eligibility.
More Resources: The task force hired more attorneys to review naturalization files, to prosecute thousands of cases.
Expanded Definition of Fraud: Unintentional errors or omissions are being looked at for materiality.

Chilling Effect on Naturalization

Immigrant advocacy groups, including the ACLU, said the increased scrutiny would deter eligible green card holders from applying for citizenship, fearing retroactive investigations.

The Human Cost of Denaturalization and Immigration Policies

While the number of denaturalization cases is small, the human impact is big:

Fear Among Immigrants: Increased investigations are causing anxiety among naturalized citizens, even those with minor errors in their applications.
Family Separation: Restrictive policies are hitting immigrant families hard, delaying reunification and causing emotional trauma.

Long Term

Over time these policies could reduce immigration by tens of millions, changing the demographic and economic fabric of the U.S.

Trump Immigration Policies and Their Legacy

The Denaturalization Section was one of several controversial initiatives under the Trump administration’s broader anti-immigration agenda which included:

Travel Bans: Restricting entry from predominantly Muslim countries.
Family Separation: Enforcing policies that separated children from their parents at the border.
Asylum Restrictions: Implementing policies that severely limited the ability to claim asylum in the U.S.

Denaturalization fit into this pattern by targeting naturalized citizens, a group previously considered secure in their immigration status.

Threat to Birthright Citizenship

In addition to denaturalization, Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. This would undermine the legal foundation of citizenship for children born in the U.S., further destabilizing immigrant families.

Consequences

Millions of U.S. born children could have their citizenship challenged if Trump’s policies succeed.
This would create stateless individuals, contrary to international law and human rights.

Immigration Policies in a Second Trump Term

Denaturalization is just one piece of the Trump administration’s overall plan to reduce immigration. Other likely actions:

Blocking Green Card Categories: Eliminating visa programs like the diversity lottery which brings in 50,000 immigrants a year.
Slowing Application Approvals: Increased scrutiny and bureaucratic hurdles for legal immigration applications.
Family-Based Immigration: Measures that could leave many Americans unable to sponsor family members for green cards.

Social and Political Consequences

Disappointed Sponsors: Many Americans trying to sponsor family members will be delayed or denied.

Labor Market

A smaller labor force could worsen existing shortages in healthcare, agriculture and construction

Economic and Demographic Impact

Denaturalization itself will not have a big demographic impact, but broader legal immigration restrictions will harm the economy by reducing labor force growth and slowing GDP.

Economic Impact

Labor Force Growth:

Immigration has driven U.S. labor force growth, a major driver of economic growth.
The combination of Trump’s policies and the pandemic between 2016 and 2022 already reduced GDP growth by 1.3 percentage points, according to a study by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP).

Employers and Consumers

Employers will have trouble filling key positions due to labor shortages.
Consumers will have reduced access to services provided by immigrant workers.

Quotes

“Limiting both legal and undocumented immigration will slow overall economic growth and disrupt sectors that rely on immigrant labor.” – Robert Lynch, economics professor at Washington College

“Denaturalization not only affects individuals, but also raises significant legal and economic concerns for the broader community,” notes Steven Lubet, Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.

Tools to Stop Denaturalization

Defending Citizenship

Fighting denaturalization is hard. The system is stacked against you. The government has the upper hand.

No Right to Counsel

Unlike criminal cases, denaturalization cases do not provide legal representation. Many defendants, unaware of the legal process, can’t mount a proper defense and will lose their citizenship.

Burden of Proof

While the government must prove fraud, the complexity of immigration law leaves individuals vulnerable to accusations based on minor errors or omissions.

Costs

Legal fees to defend against denaturalization can be tens of thousands of dollars, out of reach for many.

Legal and Practical Implications

1. What is “Material Fraud”?

The Supreme Court in 2017 in Maslenjak v. United States ruled that only lies or omissions that would have prevented naturalization at the time can justify denaturalization. This limits the government’s ability to strip immigrants of citizenship for minor mistakes. The Supreme Court limited the government’s ability to revoke citizenship by requiring proof of material fraud for denaturalization. Courts can be a check on overreach if they follow this standard.

2. Advocacy

Organizations must educate the public about denaturalization and provide resources to those affected.
More free or low-cost legal services is key to a fair trial.

3. Community Support

Immigrant communities and legal organizations can provide resources to those at risk and inform them of their rights.
Public pressure on lawmakers can also move policy.

4. Legislation

Congress can pass laws to limit denaturalization and protect naturalized citizens from overreach.

Denaturalization Deep Dive

Denaturalization, the process of revoking U.S. citizenship from naturalized citizens, has been rare. Between 1990 and 2017 an average of 11 cases were pursued annually. But under Trump, that number has skyrocketed with a big increase in government resources and the creation of new offices and initiatives. This guide explains the denaturalization process, the legal basis, recent developments and the implications for immigrants and the immigration system.

What is Denaturalization?

Denaturalization is the legal process of revoking a naturalized U.S. citizen’s citizenship. This can happen if the government proves the individual was not eligible for naturalization at the time it was granted or obtained citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation.

Legal Standards

Government must meet high burden of proof:
Civil cases: Clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.
Criminal cases: Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Denaturalization cases must go through federal court so there is judicial oversight.

Grounds for Denaturalization

Denaturalization is governed by specific sections of U.S. law that outline when citizenship can be revoked:

1. Illegal Procurement or Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Statute: Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 340(a).
Criteria:
Citizenship was procured illegally or through concealment of a material fact, leading to the potential for citizenship annulled.
Willful misrepresentation that affected the naturalization decision.
Examples: Falsifying personal information, omitting past crimes or using false identities. Investigations into naturalization fraud may involve agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency, along with other federal law enforcement bodies.

2. Naturalization Fraud Convictions

Statute: 18 U.S.C. § 1425.
Criteria:
Convicted of procuring or attempting to procure naturalization contrary to the law.
Examples: Submitting fake documents or bribing officials during the application process.

3. Wartime Military Service

Statute: INA § 329(c).
Criteria:
Naturalization through wartime military service can be revoked if the individual is discharged under “other than honorable conditions” within five years.
Example: Falsifying enlistment qualifications to get expedited citizenship.

4. Refusing to Testify Before Congress

Statute: Proviso to INA § 340(a).
Criteria:
A Cold War-era provision allowing denaturalization for refusing to testify about alleged subversive activities before Congress.
Example: Used historically against suspected communists.

Initiatives and Developments

1. Operation Janus

Launched: 2010.
Goal: Identify individuals who obtained citizenship or legal permanent residence under false identities or with prior deportation orders.
Findings:
A 2016 DHS OIG report found:
1,029 naturalized citizens with deportation orders under different identities.
315,000 missing fingerprint records for non-citizens with criminal convictions or final deportation orders.
148,000 old fingerprint cards not digitized or reviewed by ICE.

2. Operation Second Look

Launched: 2016.
Goal: Expanded naturalization case audits to find discrepancies or fraud.
Results:
Denaturalization referrals increased 600% between 2017 and 2020.

3. Denaturalization Section

Created: February 2020.
Location: Within the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation.
Mission:
Prioritize and handle denaturalization cases.
Investigate and litigate citizenship revocation.
This is a big increase in denaturalization capacity, further emphasized by a June 2025 DOJ memo that categorized denaturalization as one of the top five civil enforcement priorities, prompting an aggressive expansion of enforcement.

Denaturalization Results

1. Current Numbers

Despite all the focus and resources, the number of individuals denaturalized is still very small:
USCIS was going to refer 1,600 cases to the DOJ for prosecution.
Between 1990 and 2017, an average of 11 cases per year were pursued.

2. Systemic Issues

Chilling Effect: The increased scrutiny may deter legal permanent residents from applying for citizenship, fearing retroactive investigations.
Increased Delays: Diverting resources from application processing to investigations adds to an already overwhelmed immigration system.

3. Bigger Picture

Advocates say these efforts create a climate of fear and mistrust in immigrant communities.
Critics argue this is part of a broader effort to limit immigration and discourage naturalization applications.

The Denaturalization Process

Investigation

USCIS or ICE finds fraud or misrepresentation in an individual’s naturalization process.
Audits of old files (e.g. Janus and Second Look) often trigger investigations.

Referral

Cases are referred to the DOJ Denaturalization Section for review and prosecution.

Filing

DOJ files a civil or criminal case in federal court, stating the grounds for denaturalization.

Court Proceedings

Individual can contest the government’s claims.
The government must meet high burden of proof.

Result

If denaturalization is granted, citizenship is revoked and the individual reverts to their prior immigration status (e.g. lawful permanent resident).
If no other status applies, the individual may be deported.

Legal Protections and Obstacles to Denaturalization

Supreme Court Cases

Maslenjak v. United States (2017): The Supreme Court held that small mistakes or irrelevant statements cannot be used to denaturalize unless they were material to the naturalization decision.

Evidence Standards

Denaturalization requires clear and convincing evidence in civil cases or beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. These high standards are a check against arbitrary or abuse of denaturalization power.

Denaturalization in Civil Cases: Grounds and Process

Denaturalization—the revocation of U.S. citizenship—can be pursued in civil cases if the government proves the individual was not eligible for naturalization at the time it was granted. This page explains the legal grounds for civil denaturalization, the process and the key factors that can lead to citizenship revocation.

1. Grounds for Denaturalization in Civil Cases

A. Illegal Procurement or Concealment and Willful Misrepresentation

A naturalized citizen can be denaturalized if:

Illegally Procured: The individual did not meet the legal requirements for naturalization.
Obtained Through Concealment or Willful Misrepresentation: The individual knowingly made false statements or omitted material information to get naturalized.

These two often overlap as misrepresentation is often tied to illegally procured and invalid naturalization applications.

2. Key Requirements for Naturalization and Problems

Naturalization requires the applicant to be a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) at the time of application.
Fraudulent LPR Status: If the underlying green card was obtained fraudulently (e.g. through a sham marriage or misrepresentation on a visa application), the citizenship derived from it can be revoked.
Historical Examples: Cases under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 involved individuals who concealed their participation in Nazi persecution. Even indirect involvement, such as being a concentration camp guard, could disqualify an individual from getting a visa and subsequently naturalization.

Example:
Joe immigrated as an unmarried child of a lawful permanent resident. But he was married before immigrating and didn’t disclose it. Since his marriage made him ineligible for his green card, Joe’s naturalization can be revoked.

B. Continuous Residence

Applicants must be present in the U.S. for five (or three) years before applying and until naturalization.
Breaking Residency: Absences of one year or more break continuous residence. Absences of more than six months but less than a year may also break residency unless justified.
False Claims: Making false statements about one’s residence or misrepresenting absences can lead to denaturalization.

Example:
An applicant lists their estranged spouse’s address as their own during the three-year marital period required for naturalization. If found out, this misrepresentation can be a ground for denaturalization.

C. Physical Presence

Applicants must be physically present in the U.S. for at least half of the five (or three) years before applying.
Omissions: Failing to disclose trips abroad that exceed the allowed time can lead to denaturalization.

Example:
Lupe traveled to Mexico frequently but didn’t list absences that exceeded the allowed time. When these omissions were found out, her case was referred for denaturalization.

D. Good Moral Character

Applicants must show good moral character during the required period.
Criminal History: Crimes committed before naturalization but not disclosed on the application can disqualify an individual from meeting this standard.
Misconduct: Even minor misconduct, such as petty offenses or false testimony, can raise moral character issues.

Example:
An individual committed a crime before obtaining naturalization, but wasn’t arrested until after becoming a citizen. Their failure to disclose this crime during the application process can lead to denaturalization.

E. Attachment to Constitutional Principles and Good Order

Applicants must take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and show they are “well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.”
Cold War-Era Provision: INA § 340(c) assumes that joining certain organizations within five years of naturalization means lack of attachment to constitutional principles.

Example:
A naturalized citizen joins an organization hostile to the U.S. Constitution within five years of becoming a citizen. Unless there’s countervailing evidence, they can be denaturalized.

3. The Denaturalization Process

Investigation

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) finds potential fraud or ineligibility cases.
Audits of old files or tips from other agencies trigger investigations.

Referral

Cases are sent to the Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically the Denaturalization Section, for prosecution.

Filing a Case

DOJ files a civil complaint in federal court, listing the reasons for denaturalization.

Proceedings

The government must show clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence in civil cases.
The individual has the right to defend their case in court.

Outcome

If the government wins, citizenship is revoked and the individual goes back to their prior immigration status (e.g. lawful permanent resident).
If no other status applies, the individual can be removed (deported).

4. Key Considerations and Safeguards

Legal Protections

The government has a high burden of proof to avoid denaturalization being arbitrary or political.
Supreme Court cases like Maslenjak v. United States (2017) have held that only material misrepresentations or omissions can justify denaturalization.

Impacts on Immigrant Communities

Fear and Mistrust: The threat of denaturalization creates anxiety among immigrants, may discourage eligible individuals from applying for citizenship.
Resource Allocation: Investigating past cases may take resources away from processing new applications, further backlogging an already backlogged system.

Denaturalization: Concealment, Misrepresentation, and Other Grounds

Denaturalization, the process of revoking U.S. citizenship, has many legal grounds and processes. This guide covers concealment, willful misrepresentation, military service, Cold War-era provisions, and the denaturalization process, including defenses and court cases.

I. Concealment and Willful Misrepresentation

Grounds for Revocation

Naturalization can be revoked if:

Concealment of a Material Fact
Willful Misrepresentation

The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Kungys said:

Concealment must be willful, and misrepresentation must be of material facts.
A fact is “material” if it has a “natural tendency” to mislead immigration officials, even if the concealed information wouldn’t necessarily have prevented naturalization.

Four Requirements

To revoke citizenship for concealment or misrepresentation the government must:

Willfulness: The individual knowingly hid or falsified information.
Concealment or Misrepresentation: False information or omissions during the naturalization process.
Materiality: The concealed or false fact was relevant to the applicant’s eligibility.
Intent to Procure Naturalization: The concealment or misrepresentation was to get citizenship.

II. Examples of Concealment and Misrepresentation

Criminal History: Claiming not to have committed crimes or omitting arrests.
False Testimony: Giving false answers during the naturalization interview.
Address Fraud: Claiming to live at an address that is not the applicant’s actual home.
Failure to Take the Oath: In rare cases, not completing all steps of the naturalization process, including taking the citizenship oath, has led to revocation.

Court Precedent: If a question during the naturalization process was ambiguous and the applicant’s answer was reasonable, it can’t be fraud or concealment.

III. Wartime Military Service

Under INA § 329(a), non-citizens can naturalize through military service during wartime. But citizenship can be revoked if:

The individual is discharged “other than honorably” before completing five years of military service.

Constitutional Questions

Critics argue that revoking citizenship based on post-naturalization military conduct violates constitutional protections, as the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizenship unless voluntarily relinquished.

IV. Cold War-Era Provisions (§ 340(a) Proviso)

Naturalization can be revoked if, within 10 years of naturalization, an individual:

Refuses to testify before Congress on “subversive activities.”
Is convicted of contempt of Congress as a result.

This provision assumes the individual concealed material facts at the time of naturalization or didn’t have attachment to the Constitution. Though a relic of the Cold War, this provision is still on the books.

Constitutional Concerns

The proviso’s assumption that future behavior means past concealment raises constitutional issues, including equal protection and due process concerns.

V. Denaturalization Process

Step-by-Step Guide

Complaint Filing:

Government files a complaint in U.S. district court, with supporting affidavits showing good cause.
Jurisdiction is based on the defendant’s current residence.

Investigation and Recommendation:

USCIS investigates and recommends denaturalization.
U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecutes the case.

Burden of Proof:

Government must prove its case by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.
Courts must construe facts in favor of the naturalized citizen whenever possible.

Denaturalization Guidelines

DOJ guidelines advise against revocation for minor errors or procedural irregularities unless there was fraud.
Long standing good conduct after naturalization can weigh against revocation.

VI. Criminal Revocation of Citizenship

Statutory Basis

18 U.S.C. § 1425 requires courts to revoke citizenship when an individual is convicted of:

Knowingly and unlawfully procuring naturalization.
Producing false documents related to naturalization.

Burden of Proof

In criminal cases, government must prove fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.
Revocation is automatic upon conviction, no notice or hearing required.

Materiality Standard

The false statement must have “played a role” in naturalization.
Citizenship can’t be revoked for immaterial falsehoods unrelated to eligibility.

VII. Defenses Against Denaturalization

A. Eligibility for Citizenship

If the individual can prove they would have been eligible for citizenship, denaturalization can’t proceed.
Example: In Maslenjak v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that eligibility for citizenship is a complete defense even if fraud occurred during the process.

B. Factual Challenges

Defendants can rebut government allegations by presenting evidence that challenges the facts of the case:
Example: In a pre-WWII case, a court held that an individual who lived abroad temporarily successfully proved they intended to remain a U.S. resident and thus defeated denaturalization.

C. Procedural Errors

Cases have been dismissed where the government failed to authenticate evidence as required by federal rules.

VIII. Broader Impact

Chilling Effect

Denaturalization could discourage eligible immigrants from applying for citizenship, fearing retroactive review of their applications.

Due Process

Courts stress the importance of fairness and caution in denaturalization cases, given the value of U.S. citizenship.

Materiality

What is Materiality

Materiality looks at whether the concealed or misrepresented fact had a “natural tendency” to affect the decision of the immigration official.
Supreme Court Precedent: In Kungys v. United States, the Court held that a misrepresentation or omission must meet this standard to warrant revocation of citizenship.

Principles

The information doesn’t have to have disqualified the applicant from naturalization; it just has to be relevant enough to have influenced the decision.
Materiality is only required for cases of concealment or misrepresentation, not for illegal procurement of citizenship.

II. Legal Standards for Proving Materiality

1. Causative Connection

The government must prove that the misrepresentation or concealment either:

Directly disqualified the individual, or
Would have triggered an investigation that would have uncovered disqualifying facts.

Example: In Maslenjak v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the misrepresentation must have caused the individual to acquire citizenship. The Court said:

If the misrepresented fact was itself disqualifying, the link to naturalization is obvious.
If not disqualifying, the government must show that discovery would have revealed other disqualifications.

2. Burden of Proof

Clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.
Courts require a lot of evidence to take away citizenship, given the value of citizenship rights.

III. Court Decisions on Materiality

Important Cases

Kungys v. United States

Misrepresentations about date and place of birth were immaterial because they were irrelevant.

Maslenjak v. United States

False statements about a spouse’s military service were evaluated for relevance to the eligibility criteria.

Chaunt v. United States

Failure to disclose old arrests for minor offenses was immaterial because the arrests were not for moral turpitude or eligibility.

Rejected Defenses

Courts have rejected arguments that certain arrests or misstatements were immaterial if they would have closed off lines of inquiry that would have revealed disqualifying information.

IV. Defenses to Materiality

1. Eligibility

Example: In Maslenjak, the Court said showing eligibility at the time of naturalization can prevent revocation.

2. Ambiguous Questions

If a naturalization question is ambiguous, courts may find the applicant’s answer was not intentionally misleading.
Example: In Nowak and Maisenberg, the Supreme Court held that questions about “anarchy” were too vague to require disclosure of Communist Party membership.

3. Truthful Despite Misinterpretation

The applicant can argue their answer was truthful based on a reasonable interpretation of the question.
Example: In U.S. v. Profaci, the Second Circuit held that the question “Have you ever been arrested?” could be reasonably interpreted to only apply to U.S. arrests.

V. Procedural Defenses

1. High Burden of Proof

The government must show clear and convincing evidence that the misrepresentation was material to the naturalization.
Courts are cautious when taking away citizenship long after it was given.

2. Statute of Limitations

Courts have held there is no statute of limitations on denaturalization.

3. Procedural Errors

Procedural errors, such as failure to give notice of denaturalization, can be grounds for dismissal.
Example: In U.S. v. Ataya, the conviction underlying denaturalization was vacated due to procedural errors.

VI. Equal Protection and Materiality

Equal Protection Claims

Naturalized citizens have argued that treating them differently from native-born citizens violates the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Courts have held denaturalization statutes are constitutional, distinguishing between citizenship rights and fraud.

Important Cases

Schneider v. Rusk

The Supreme Court struck down a statute that discriminated against naturalized citizens living abroad, saying native-born and naturalized citizens are equal.

Current Law

While naturalized citizens can be treated differently for fraud-related revocations, it must be rational.

VII. Practical Considerations

1. Consequences of Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation, even if immaterial to eligibility, can raise moral character issues and impact future immigration applications.
Example: False statements in other contexts can still create doubt about honesty during naturalization.

2. Chilling Effect

Fear of retroactive review and denaturalization may deter eligible immigrants from becoming citizens even if their applications are truthful.

3. Long-Term Consequences

Denaturalization proceedings show the importance of transparency and accuracy in naturalization applications to avoid problems later.

Equitable Discretion, Administrative Denaturalization and Derivatives

This guide covers denaturalization, including limits of judicial discretion, administrative denaturalization, consequences of losing citizenship and derivatives such as children and spouses.

I. Equitable Discretion in Denaturalization

Courts Cannot Exercise Discretion to Refuse Denaturalization

The Supreme Court has said naturalization is a privilege, not a right. Courts have no “equitable discretion” to deny denaturalization if the statutory requirements were not met.
Case: Fedorenko v. United States held denaturalization is mandatory if citizenship was obtained by illegal procurement or willful misrepresentation of material facts.

Government Negligence Is Not a Defense

Applicants can’t argue the government’s failure to catch errors during the naturalization process wipes out grounds for denaturalization.
Example: In U.S. v. Benavides, defenses like government negligence or comparative negligence were deemed irrelevant in denaturalization.

II. Administrative Denaturalization Enjoined

Limited Administrative Authority

INA § 340(h) used to allow the Attorney General to administratively revoke naturalization but that power has been curtailed:
Administrative revocation of naturalization is no longer allowed.
Only federal courts can revoke citizenship through judicial proceedings.
Administrative agencies like USCIS can cancel naturalization certificates if they were fraudulently issued but can’t strip individuals of citizenship.

Important Case: Xia v. Tillerson

In this case, Chinese nationals challenged the administrative cancellation of their naturalization certificates.
The court held:
Canceling a naturalization certificate does not revoke the underlying citizenship.
If citizenship is in question, the government must initiate judicial proceedings under INA § 1451.

III. Consequences of Denaturalization

Relation-Back Doctrine

Revocation of citizenship is retroactive, as if the person was never naturalized.
The individual reverts back to their pre-naturalization immigration status (e.g., LPR or undocumented).

Criminal Consequences

Crimes committed after naturalization can’t be used as grounds for deportation once citizenship is revoked.
Supreme Court Ruling: The relation-back doctrine doesn’t apply to post-naturalization crimes.

IV. Derivatives

Derivatives Defined

Derivatives are individuals who claim citizenship through a parent or spouse, usually children born abroad or spouses of citizens.

Rules

Concealment or Misrepresentation

If a parent or spouse loses citizenship for these reasons, derivative citizens lose theirs too, wherever they are.
Example: If a parent lied about prior convictions to get citizenship, the child’s derivative citizenship is also revoked.

Illegal Procurement

Derivatives don’t lose citizenship if the parent or spouse’s citizenship is revoked for illegal procurement.
Example: A parent’s invalid marriage might void their citizenship but wouldn’t affect the child’s status.

Other grounds (e.g. military service or subversive activities)

Derivatives lose citizenship only if they are outside the U.S. at the time of the parent’s denaturalization.

Examples of Derivative Outcomes

Military Service: If a parent gets citizenship through military service but is dishonorably discharged, children outside the U.S. lose their citizenship. Children in the U.S. keep theirs.
Misrepresentation: If a parent lied on the application, derivatives lose citizenship wherever they are.

V. Derivative Citizenship Rules Summary

Grounds for Revocation

Grounds for Revocation	Living in the U.S.?	Living Outside the U.S.?
Illegal Procurement	No loss of status	No loss of status
Concealment or Misrepresentation	Citizenship revoked	Citizenship revoked
Other Grounds (Military/Subversive Acts)	Retains citizenship	Citizenship revoked

VI. Practical Considerations

Protecting Citizenship

Naturalized citizens should be honest in their applications and aware of the consequences of their actions before and after naturalization.

Impact on Family Members

Derivatives should monitor any legal challenges involving the principal applicant as the outcome may affect their status.

Administrative Errors

Administrative errors in issuing certificates may require judicial resolution to determine the status of the affected individuals.

United States v. Farhane: A Denaturalization Case

The case of United States v. Abdulrahman Farhane is an important case related to denaturalization issue. This article breaks down the key events and implications of this big legal battle that affects naturalized citizens.

Background: Farhane’s Story

Who is Abdulrahman Farhane?
Moroccan-born, naturalized Muslim American living in Brooklyn.
Built a life in the U.S. over 30 years, with two American-born kids.
The Guilty Plea
In 2006, Farhane pleaded guilty to federal charges, his lawyer advised him to do so.
He served 11 years in prison, good time, and got out early.
The Denaturalization Threat
After his release, the Department of Justice (DOJ) started to pursue his U.S. citizenship revocation.
If successful, Farhane would be deported and his children’s derivative citizenship would be revoked.

Legal Issues: Effective Counsel

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Farhane’s original lawyer didn’t tell him about the denaturalization consequences of his guilty plea.
The omission is the basis of Farhane’s motion to vacate his plea.
The Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR) Project at CUNY Law, along with Wilmer Hale, represents Farhane.
They argued that the failure to advise Farhane violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel.

Court Proceedings: Timeline

Initial Proceedings

2019-2020: Farhane filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his guilty plea.
The district court denied the motion in March 2020.
October 2024: The en banc court reversed the district court’s decision.
Holding: Naturalized citizens must be advised of denaturalization and deportation consequences at the time of guilty plea.

What it means

For Naturalized Citizens

Legal counsel must inform defendants of immigration consequences of guilty pleas.
Stronger defense against retroactive denaturalization.

For Immigration Law

Trump administration’s effort to expand denaturalization beyond war criminals and Nazis to Muslim Americans and other groups.
Educates on due process for naturalized citizens facing legal trouble.

For Farhane and His Family

Farhane keeps his citizenship and his children keep their citizenship.
Big win for advocates and immigrant rights groups.

FAQs: Trump’s 2025 Efforts to Expand Denaturalization

What is denaturalization, and how is it different from losing citizenship?

Denaturalization means the revocation of U.S. citizenship from a person who obtained it through naturalization — not birth. It can occur only when the government proves the person illegally or fraudulently procured citizenship, such as by willfully misrepresenting or concealing material facts. This differs from voluntary loss of citizenship (expatriation) or constitutional protections for those born in the United States, whose citizenship cannot be revoked by executive order.

What changed in 2025 under Trump’s second term?

In June 2025, the Department of Justice issued a memo from Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate directing that denaturalization become a top enforcement priority. The memo instructs prosecutors to “prioritize and maximally pursue” citizenship revocation wherever evidence supports it, adding new “priority categories” such as fraud, violent crime, human rights violations, and national security threats (see DOJ Civil Division memo). This directive significantly expanded the criteria for targeting naturalized citizens, marking a shift in enforcement priorities.

This expansion marks the broadest denaturalization initiative since World War II, reflecting a wider strategy to redefine “citizenship integrity” under Trump’s 2025 enforcement agenda.

The 2025 denaturalization policy was shaped by three deportation hardliners: Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, and Tom Homan.

Who is most at risk under the new DOJ guidance?

The 2025 DOJ memo lists several categories of cases for priority review, including:

Terrorism or espionage involving threats to U.S. national security;
War crimes or human rights violations committed before naturalization;
Transnational gang or organized criminal activity;
Serious fraud or misrepresentation, including pandemic relief fraud or benefit abuse;
Sexual offenses, human trafficking, or child exploitation;
Failure to disclose arrests or convictions during the naturalization process;
University students who have naturalized may also face scrutiny under these new policies; and
A broad catch-all category for “other cases deemed sufficiently important” by DOJ leadership.

Legal analysts note that this final category gives wide discretionary power to the administration (see Democracy Docket analysis).

Can the government denaturalize large numbers of citizens at once?

Probably not. Although Trump’s DOJ has prioritized these cases, experts say mass denaturalization is not feasible. Each case requires individualized investigation, federal litigation, and clear, convincing evidence. Historically, the U.S. has averaged fewer than a dozen successful denaturalizations per year. Without major funding increases and expanded staff, this remains symbolic or deterrent rather than large-scale (see Washington Post report).

What are the main legal limits on Trump’s denaturalization powers?

Denaturalization is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1451, which restricts revocations to cases involving fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation of a material fact. Courts also apply strict constitutional protections:

High burden of proof: The government must prove its case with clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.
Materiality requirement: Under Maslenjak v. United States (2017), only false statements that would have changed the outcome of the naturalization can justify revocation.
Due process: Individuals have a right to notice, hearings, evidence review, and appeal.
Equal protection: Selective or discriminatory targeting can be challenged.

Legal scholars note these constitutional guardrails make widespread revocations highly unlikely (see legal overview).

Could this policy be used against political critics or dissenters?

Potentially — though such use would be unconstitutional. The memo’s vague “priority” language could enable selective enforcement, especially if prosecutors target politically active immigrants. Civil rights groups warn that the catch-all clause may be used to intimidate or punish critics of the administration (read Democracy Docket report).

However, First Amendment protections and judicial oversight mean citizenship cannot be revoked for political speech or protest. Any such attempt would almost certainly be blocked in federal court.

Can natural-born citizens be stripped of citizenship under Trump’s 2025 orders?

No. Only naturalized citizens can be denaturalized. The 14th Amendment protects those born on U.S. soil, and no president or agency can legally override that. While Executive Order 14160 sought to redefine birthright citizenship for future cases, it cannot retroactively apply to those already recognized as citizens (see EO summary).

Can old or minor mistakes on a naturalization form lead to denaturalization?

Not unless the error was intentional and material. The Supreme Court ruled in Maslenjak that citizenship can’t be revoked for “innocent or immaterial” mistakes. For example, forgetting a middle name, misunderstanding a form question, or failing to recall a decades-old event does not qualify. The government must show that the true fact would have led USCIS to deny naturalization.

Are naturalized citizens entitled to a public defender in denaturalization cases?

No. Because denaturalization is a civil proceeding, defendants are not guaranteed a free lawyer. They may hire private counsel or seek help from nonprofits or legal aid groups. This imbalance raises concerns about access to justice, since most defendants face the full power of DOJ without court-appointed counsel (see NACDL statement).

What happens after someone is denaturalized?

If a court revokes citizenship, the person reverts to their prior immigration status (such as permanent resident). If that status no longer exists — or was itself based on fraud — they may be placed in removal proceedings. Some may still qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture depending on their situation.

Can Trump’s DOJ reopen cases from decades ago?

Yes, though success is limited. There is no absolute statute of limitations on denaturalization, but courts often reject stale or unfairly delayed cases on equitable grounds. Evidence degradation, faded memories, or lack of notice can all make old cases legally vulnerable. Most analysts expect the DOJ to focus on recent or high-profile cases rather than distant ones.

Have any denaturalizations already occurred under this policy?

Yes. In mid-2025, the DOJ successfully revoked the citizenship of a U.K.-born man convicted of pre-naturalization sex crimes, citing intentional concealment of a material fact. It was one of the first test cases under the expanded priority framework (see policy tracker summary).

Can Congress intervene or block these policies?

Congress retains oversight and funding powers over DOJ. It could hold hearings, enact statutory clarifications, or attach budget riders limiting denaturalization initiatives. However, core citizenship protections stem from the Constitution, not statute — so congressional support is helpful but not strictly necessary to challenge unlawful actions.

What rights do citizens have if targeted?

Anyone facing denaturalization can:

Contest the allegations in federal court,
File an appeal after judgment,
Assert due process and equal protection defenses, and
Seek representation through immigration law clinics or advocacy groups such as the Immigrant Legal Resource Center or ACLU.

Denaturalization orders are not final until all appeals are exhausted.

Could these actions expand as part of “Project 2025”?

Yes. The Project 2025 policy blueprint, developed by conservative think tanks, proposes sweeping executive control over immigration and citizenship. Observers see the 2025 DOJ memo as an early implementation step of that broader agenda to tighten definitions of American identity and enforce “citizenship integrity” (read analysis by American Immigration Council).

What’s the realistic scope of this denaturalization campaign?

Despite its rhetoric, Trump’s 2025 denaturalization push is likely to remain legally limited and symbolic. Courts, constitutional precedent, and practical barriers make mass revocations virtually impossible.
Still, advocates warn that even rare denaturalization cases can have a chilling effect on millions of naturalized Americans who fear their status could be questioned.

Trump’s 2025 denaturalization initiative directs DOJ to prioritize citizenship revocations in fraud and national security cases — but constitutional safeguards, high proof standards, and limited resources make mass revocations unlikely.

Concerned About Denaturalization? Speak with an Experienced Immigration Attorney Before It’s Too Late

If you’ve begun to wonder whether something from your past — a forgotten form, an old arrest, a prior visa issue, or a mistake on your naturalization application — could now be used against you under Trump’s expanded denaturalization efforts, you are not alone. Thousands of naturalized citizens are quietly asking the same questions:

Could I lose my citizenship for a small error or omission?
What if I misunderstood a question years ago?
Am I at risk if I once faced an immigration issue, misfiled a form, or gave incorrect information?

These are not hypothetical fears. The Department of Justice’s 2025 Civil Division memo has made denaturalization a top enforcement priority, directing attorneys to “maximize pursuit” of cases involving alleged fraud or concealment. But not every mistake is fraud — and only an experienced immigration lawyer can determine whether something in your file is truly “material” under the law.

That’s where Attorney Richard T. Herman can help.

With over 30 years of experience practicing U.S. immigration law nationwide, Richard Herman has defended countless immigrants, permanent residents, and naturalized citizens through every kind of legal challenge — from citizenship reviews and revocations to federal appeals and waivers. As co-author of Immigrant, Inc. and a nationally recognized advocate for immigrant rights, Herman has built his career around one principle: that America grows stronger when it welcomes, not worries, its new citizens.

When you schedule a consultation with Herman, you will receive:

A confidential review of your naturalization record and prior immigration history.
An expert opinion on whether any old issues could trigger denaturalization.
A strategic plan to protect your rights and document your lawful citizenship.
Peace of mind from a seasoned attorney who understands the law — and the politics — behind today’s denaturalization surge.

No one should face uncertainty about their citizenship status alone. Denaturalization is complex, rare, and defensible — but only if you understand your risks and act early.

Contact Richard T. Herman today to schedule a personal consultation and secure the guidance you deserve.

👉 Book your consultation now: Schedule with Herman Legal Group or call 1-800-808-4013.

Richard Herman is more than an immigration lawyer — he’s a national voice for immigrant empowerment, a trusted media commentator, and an evangelist for the economic and community benefits of welcoming immigrants. If you value the life and identity you built in the United States, don’t leave your citizenship to chance.

Let Richard Herman help you understand your options, protect your status, and stand confidently as a U.S. citizen.

If you’re unsure whether Trump’s 2025 denaturalization policy could affect you, talk to Attorney Richard T. Herman — a 30-year immigration law veteran and co-author of Immigrant, Inc. — for a confidential, expert review of your case.

Know Your Rights:

Comprehensive Resource List: Trump’s 2025 Expansion of Denaturalization Efforts

1. Government Resources

The Department of Justice Civil Division memo issued in June 2025 directed prosecutors to make denaturalization a top enforcement priority. It instructs attorneys to “maximize pursuit” of revocation cases based on fraud, misrepresentation, or criminal conduct — marking the broadest citizenship review program in decades.

A series of DOJ press releases in 2025 announced denaturalization filings involving terrorism, sex crimes, and fraud. These official case summaries reveal how the DOJ applies its expanded mandate under Trump’s second term.

The Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) manages denaturalization lawsuits within DOJ’s Civil Division, coordinating litigation strategy and appellate defense.

Statutory authority comes from 8 U.S.C. § 1451, which permits citizenship revocation only if it was “illegally procured” or obtained by willful misrepresentation or concealment of material facts.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Maslenjak v. United States (2017) held that false statements must be material — meaning they would have changed the outcome of naturalization — before citizenship can be revoked.

For definitions of “material misrepresentation,” the USCIS Policy Manual provides the interpretive framework DOJ attorneys and adjudicators use when reviewing potential fraud or concealment.

Issued in January 2025, Executive Order 14160 — “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” — sought to reinterpret birthright citizenship, underscoring the administration’s broader effort to tighten naturalization and citizenship eligibility.

The groundwork for this expansion traces back to the DOJ Denaturalization Section created in 2020, centralizing enforcement within DOJ’s Civil Division.

2. Professional Associations and Practitioner Resources

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) curates a specialized hub covering denaturalization trends, litigation, and defense strategies for immigration attorneys nationwide.

AILA’s Policy Brief on Denaturalization (July 2025) examines Trump’s expanded enforcement powers and cautions against politically motivated revocations.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) criticized the 2025 DOJ directive, highlighting the denial of counsel to low-income defendants and erosion of due process in civil denaturalization cases.

The New York City Bar Association published a detailed analysis of early 2025 immigration changes, including the DOJ’s citizenship revocation strategy, offering practitioner insights and policy commentary.

The Federal Bar Association Immigration Law Section provides training and CLE webinars on responding to revocation proceedings and defending naturalization challenges.

The American Bar Association Commission on Immigration report, Reforming the Immigration System, reviews the legal and procedural safeguards relevant to denaturalization, framing it within broader due process reform proposals.

3. Advocacy Organizations and Legal Guides

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) offers community education and legal advisories explaining how denaturalization works, who is at risk, and how individuals can assert their rights under Trump’s 2025 policy.

The American Immigration Council (AIC) provides plain-language explainers on Maslenjak v. United States and ongoing denaturalization litigation, clarifying evidentiary and constitutional standards.

The Lawfare Institute examines the political and constitutional implications of the DOJ’s 2025 denaturalization push, warning of its potential chilling effect on naturalized citizens.

4. Journalism and Research Coverage

The Washington Post reported in July 2025 that Trump’s DOJ memo could “transform the symbolic weight of citizenship into a conditional privilege,” citing experts who doubt large-scale revocations are legally feasible.

The Guardian and New York Post provided early coverage of the June 2025 memo, documenting reactions from civil rights advocates and attorneys concerned about selective enforcement.

5. Quick Citations for Researchers and Journalists

For analysis or citation in legal commentary:

Statutory Law: 8 U.S.C. § 1451
Key Case: Maslenjak v. United States (2017)
DOJ Policy (2025): Civil Division Memo
Executive Action: Executive Order 14160
USCIS Guidance: Policy Manual, Vol. 8, Part J, Ch. 3
Professional Associations: AILA Resource Hub, NACDL Statement, NYC Bar Report

Success Stories

Can Trump Take Away My Citizenship?

Table of Contents

Trump’s Immigration Crackdown: Denaturalization is Back

Going Beyond Terrorism and War Crimes

Who’s at Risk?

Likely Targets

What is Denaturalization?

Fear is part of the strategy

What’s next for immigration under Trump?

Expected tactics

How Denaturalization Works

Investigation:

Filing a Case:

Outcome:

Denaturalization Facts

Why Naturalized Citizens?

The Strategy

The Philosophy

Denaturalization Consequences

1. Individual Consequences

2. Family Consequences

3. Psychological Harm

4. Wider Social Consequences

Recent DOJ Denaturalization Cases (2024–2025)

1. United States v. Duke – Sex Crimes and Concealment of Criminal Conduct

2. United States v. Bosnian Soldier – War Crimes and Human Rights Violations

3. United States v. Moio Bartolini – Immigration Fraud and False Testimony

4. Multi-State Filings – Identity Fraud and Concealment of Prior Deportations

5. Broader Enforcement Context under the 2025 Memo

Myth vs. Reality: Trump’s 2025 Push to Expand Denaturalization

Myth #1: Trump can strip anyone’s U.S. citizenship by executive order.

Myth #2: Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship automatically cancels existing U.S. citizens.

Myth #3: The DOJ can now mass-denaturalize thousands of people at once.

Myth #4: Small mistakes or typos in immigration forms can get you denaturalized.

Myth #5: Natural-born citizens could lose citizenship under Trump’s policy.

Myth #6: Denaturalization is a criminal punishment.

Myth #7: The 2025 denaturalization agenda only targets terrorists or human rights violators.

Myth #8: If someone is denaturalized, they automatically lose their green card too.

Myth #9: Trump’s DOJ can use AI to find “hidden fraud” in old naturalization files.

Myth #10: Immigrants who criticize Trump risk losing citizenship.

Myth #11: Denaturalization can happen instantly, without notice.

Myth #12: Trump’s second term has already created new laws allowing denaturalization for minor crimes.

Myth #13: Denaturalization efforts mainly affect recent immigrants.

Myth #14: Once denaturalized, there is no way to fight back.

Myth #15: Trump’s 2025 push marks the first time the U.S. has used denaturalization aggressively.

Myth #16: Congress or courts can’t stop denaturalization once Trump orders it.

Myth #17: Trump’s “Protecting Citizenship” plan targets all naturalized Americans.

Myth #18: Losing citizenship automatically leads to deportation.

Myth #19: Denaturalization violates the Constitution.

Myth #20: There’s nothing citizens can do to protect themselves.

Why Should All Americans Care?

1. Citizenship as a Firewall

2. Immigration Policy

3. Second Class Citizens

History

1906 to Mid 20th Century: Setting the Precedent

Late 20th Century: Targeted Use

Trump’s Denaturalization Task Force

What is Operation Janus?

Trump Era

Case Study: Norma Borgono

Trump’s Expanded Approach

Trump

Chilling Effect on Naturalization

The Human Cost of Denaturalization and Immigration Policies

Long Term

Trump Immigration Policies and Their Legacy

Threat to Birthright Citizenship

Immigration Policies in a Second Trump Term

Social and Political Consequences

Labor Market

Economic and Demographic Impact

Quotes

Tools to Stop Denaturalization

Defending Citizenship

No Right to Counsel

Burden of Proof

Costs

Legal and Practical Implications