A Legal Analysis

While green card holders (lawful permanent residents) enjoy long-term U.S. residency, their status is not immune from deportation. Under Donald Trump’s 2025 immigration agenda, enforcement could expand to include more lawful permanent residents — even those with no recent criminal activity.

The current political landscape, marked by a shift from the Biden administration’s approach to the possibility of a new Trump term, has heightened concerns about green card holder deportations.

The question of whether Donald Trump would deport green card holders was a big fear and topic of speculation during his presidency. Green card holders (also known as lawful permanent residents or LPRs) have generally stable immigration status. But their status is not immune to legal challenges or policy changes.

In this post I’ll break down whether green card holders were deported under Trump, the legal framework for green card holder removals, the policies that caused fear and what green card holders can do to protect their status.

Understanding the Legal Rights of Green Card Holders

A lawful permanent resident (LPR) — commonly known as a green card holder — has the legal right to live and work permanently in the United States. LPRs may travel internationally, own property, and eventually apply for citizenship after a qualifying period. However, a green card does not grant the same level of protection as U.S. citizenship.

Key Legal Definition

Under INA Section 101(a)(20), a lawful permanent resident is defined as a person lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the U.S. as an immigrant, in accordance with immigration laws.

Main Protections

• Right to live and work indefinitely in the U.S.
• Eligibility to sponsor certain family members for visas.
• Path to citizenship after typically five years of residence.
• Access to due process before removal under INA §240.

Limitations

• Subject to removal if they violate immigration or criminal laws.
• Must maintain residence in the U.S. and avoid long absences abroad.
• Must renew their green card every 10 years.

Relevant Agencies

• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): Handles applications for green cards, renewals, and naturalization.
• Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): Enforces immigration laws and oversees deportation.
• Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR): Manages immigration courts and appeals.

These agencies operate under the authority of the federal government, which is responsible for setting and enforcing immigration policy.

Can Green Card Holders Be Deported Under U.S. Law?

Yes. Green card holders can be deported under INA Section 237 for certain criminal offenses, fraud, or violations of immigration law. Permanent residency provides stability — not immunity.

Deportation, formally called “removal,” is the legal process of expelling a non-citizen from the United States. Even lawful permanent residents are subject to deportation under specific conditions, with enforcement efforts often prioritizing those convicted of serious crimes or violent crimes, rather than minor offenses.

Key Grounds for Deportability

According toINA §237, LPRs can be removed for:

• Criminal convictions, including aggravated felonies, crimes involving moral turpitude, or drug-related offenses.
• Fraud or misrepresentation when obtaining immigration benefits.
• Failure to maintain status or abandonment of residence by prolonged absence abroad.
• Security or terrorism-related concerns, including support for prohibited organizations.
• Public charge violations (rarely enforced, but revived periodically under certain administrations).

Recent policy proposals have discussed deporting millions of immigrants, which would require broad application of these grounds.

Examples of Deportable Situations

• A permanent resident convicted of domestic violence or theft within five years of entry.
• Fraudulently obtaining a green card through a sham marriage.
• Living abroad for more than one year without reentry permission.

Trump’s 2025 Deportation Agenda: What’s Changing

Immigration Lawyer Richard Herman: “Trump’s 2025 enforcement strategy marks an aggressive return to “zero-tolerance” immigration policies — expanding deportation priorities to include lawful permanent residents flagged for old or minor infractions.”

President Trump and his advisors, including key Trump officials, are planning a mass deportation effort as a central part of his immigration policy for the new Trump term. The scale Trump envisions involves mobilizing a new deportation force, potentially including the military, federal agents, and local police, to carry out mass deportations at a scale not seen before in U.S. history. This unprecedented expansion of Trump’s immigration policies would require extensive resources and coordination, representing a significant shift from previous administrations.

Trump’s second-term immigration blueprint outlines a sweeping expansion of enforcement authority, including:

New Executive Orders and Policies (2025 Context)

• A renewed “America First Enforcement Initiative,” directing ICE and USCIS to reexamine prior immigration records for potential revocations.
• Expansion of “Operation Safeguard,” focusing on identity and background audits of current LPRs.
• Mandated coordination between state and local police and federal immigration authorities for joint removal operations, with state and local police potentially deputized or otherwise involved in executing immigration arrests and participating in raids.
• Revival of mass-deportation task forces under the Department of Homeland Security.

Comparison with Trump’s First Term (2017–2021)

During Trump’s first term, deportations increased sharply among non-criminal immigrants. Enforcement shifted from targeted actions to broad raids — often encompassing people with no recent offenses.

Policies like the 2017 Executive Order on Interior Enforcement and programs such as Operation Janus targeted not only undocumented individuals but also naturalized citizens and green card holders with technical irregularities.

Trump officials also targeted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders for increased scrutiny and potential removal, a trend that may continue or expand in a second term.

Projected Impact on Lawful Permanent Residents

The 2025 agenda may expand data-sharing among USCIS, ICE, CBP, and the FBI to identify inconsistencies in past applications — even decades old.
Increased surveillance and audit programs could subject more long-term residents to review.

Historical Context — How Trump Targeted Green Card Holders Before

Trump’s first term established the framework for re-examining old immigration files — paving the way for possible revocation of green cards and citizenship years later.

Many of the current protections for refugees and asylum seekers were established in the aftermath of World War II, shaping the modern U.S. immigration system.

Between 2017 and 2021, multiple programs scrutinized legal immigrants’ prior applications:

Operation Janus (2018)

Launched to identify individuals who obtained naturalization after concealing prior deportation orders. This operation led to hundreds of denaturalization cases and reviews of thousands of green cards.

Operation Second Look (2019)

Focused on detecting misrepresentations or omissions in immigration filings. It directed USCIS officers to reopen closed cases if fraud indicators were discovered through data cross-matching.

DOJ Denaturalization Section (2020)

The Department of Justice created a specialized unit dedicated to revoking citizenships obtained through fraud — sometimes decades earlier.

These initiatives collectively blurred the distinction between undocumented enforcement and lawful immigration review, creating a foundation for 2025 expansions.

Case Study Example

An LPR from India who pled guilty to a misdemeanor theft in 2005 was later placed in removal proceedings in 2019 under expanded enforcement rules — despite completing probation long ago.

How Green Card Holders Can Lose Their Status

Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney: “Even without criminal conduct, lawful permanent residents can lose their green cards through extended absence, misrepresentation, or abandonment of U.S. residency.”

Common Non-Criminal Grounds for Losing Green Card Status

1. Abandonment of Residency: Staying outside the U.S. for more than 12 months without a reentry permit may trigger abandonment findings under 8 C.F.R. §211.1.
2. Misrepresentation or Fraud: Providing false information on visa or green card applications can result in revocation under INA §237(a)(1)(A).
3. Public Charge or Welfare Misuse: Though rarely enforced, some administrations revisit these provisions.
4. Failure to Register for Selective Service: Male residents between 18–25 must register at www.sss.gov.
5. Failure to File Taxes as a Resident: Non-filing or claiming “nonresident” status for tax purposes may indicate abandonment.
6. Commiting criminal acts.

Travel Risks

Traveling abroad for extended periods or repeatedly staying outside the U.S. can jeopardize residency. Customs and Border Protection officers at ports of entry can question returning residents and refer them to immigration court for abandonment proceedings.

The 2025 Reality — How Enforcement Could Expand

Richard T. Herman, Esq., Immigration Expert: “Trump’s 2025 immigration blueprint envisions massive data integration between DHS, ICE, and USCIS — using technology and AI to re-evaluate millions of existing green cards.”

These expanded enforcement efforts are expected to target not only green card holders but also unauthorized immigrants, significantly increasing the overall scope of potential removals.

Digital Enforcement Expansion

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is expected to enhance surveillance using:

• Artificial intelligence for biometric and document cross-checks.
• Shared interagency databases connecting USCIS, ICE, and FBI records.
• “Pattern-recognition” algorithms for identifying potential fraud in older filings.

Broader Enforcement Scope

• Reinstating “public safety threat” definitions to include DUI, domestic disputes, and gang-related suspicions.
• Coordinating ICE field operations with local sheriffs through 287(g) agreements.
• Increased worksite audits targeting employers of green card holders.

Expanded enforcement and surveillance efforts have also raised concerns about racial profiling, with critics warning that such practices could lead to unlawful stops and arrests based on ethnicity or national origin.

Potential High-Risk Groups

• Green card holders with old criminal records or unresolved charges.
• LPRs with pending immigration benefit applications.
• Individuals flagged by USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS).

What Green Card Holders Can Do to Protect Themselves

Herman Legal Group, LLC: “Green card holders can minimize deportation risks by maintaining clean records, filing taxes properly, and seeking naturalization as soon as eligible.”

Key Protective Steps

1. Consult an Immigration Attorney:
   Seek advice from experienced counsel familiar with evolving Trump-era enforcement.
2. Maintain Continuous Residence:
   Avoid long absences and keep proof of U.S. domicile (taxes, bills, lease).
3. Stay Crime-Free:
   Even minor offenses can trigger deportation review.
4. File for Citizenship Promptly:
   Applying for naturalization provides greater protection from removal.
   See official guide: USCIS Naturalization Eligibility.
5. Know Your Rights During ICE Encounters:
   Review official Know Your Rights materials.

Avoid Common Pitfalls

• Using public benefits without verifying eligibility.
• Signing immigration forms without understanding their consequences.
• Ignoring notices from USCIS or EOIR.

Official Resource:

USCIS: Maintaining Permanent Residence

The Reality: Did Trump Deport Green Card Holders?

While there was a lot of fear among green card holders of mass deportations, the reality was more complex. Deportations of LPRs during the Trump administration were mostly of individuals with clear legal grounds for removal, such as criminal convictions or fraud.

Examples of Targeted Cases

1. Green Card Holders with Criminal Convictions

• LPRs with aggravated felony or multiple minor convictions were prioritized for removal.

2. Fraudulent Green Card Applications

• Some LPRs who got their status through sham marriages or fake documents had their cases reopened and were deported.

3. Abandonment of Residency

• Green card holders who spent years outside the U.S. without clear ties were flagged for abandonment and lost their status.

Despite the increased enforcement, green card holders have several legal protections against removal. Supreme Court decisions have reinforced key legal protections for green card holders, including due process rights and limits on government enforcement powers.

Due Process Rights

• Deportation proceedings must follow the rules, including a hearing before an immigration judge.
• Green card holders can appeal unfavorable decisions, often times delaying or preventing removal.

Government’s Burden of Proof

• USCIS or ICE must show that the green card holder has violated immigration laws or committed a deportable offense.

Legal Defenses in Deportation Proceedings

• LPRs can defend against removal by showing rehabilitation, family hardship or eligibility for relief such as cancellation of removal.

What Green Card Holders Can Do to Protect Their Immigration Status

If you’re a green card holder worried about deportation, take proactive steps to protect your status and your peace of mind:

1. Don’t Commit Crimes

• Even minor offenses can have big immigration consequences.
• If detained, consult with a criminal attorney and an immigration attorney.

2. Keep Strong Ties to the U.S.

• File U.S. taxes every year and have a permanent U.S. address.
• Avoid long trips abroad and get a reentry permit if you must travel for an extended period.

3. Be Honest in Immigration Processes

• Always tell the truth in immigration applications and interviews.
• If you think there’s an issue with your original application, seek legal advice to fix it.

4. Stay Informed

• Keep up with immigration policies and how they affect you.
• Contact an immigration attorney for updates and advice.

5. Become a U.S. Citizen

Naturalization is the best way to be removed-proof, as U.S. citizens cannot be deported.

Debates over birthright citizenship have intensified in recent years, with some political figures proposing to limit this constitutional right, further highlighting the importance of securing citizenship status.

What to Do If You’re in Danger?

If you think you may be in danger as a green card holder, do the following:

See an Immigration Attorney

• A qualified attorney can review your case and develop a defense.

Gather Evidence of Your Residency

• Collect documents that show your strong ties to the U.S., such as tax returns, employment records and family relationships.

Fix Any Past Legal Issues

• Take care of outstanding warrants or criminal cases with legal help.

Trump’s Immigration Plan

President Donald Trump’s immigration plan aimed to overhaul the U.S. immigration system comprehensively. One of the most controversial aspects was the proposal to deport up to 20 million undocumented immigrants, including those with temporary legal status. This ambitious plan also sought to change the way immigration courts operate, intending to speed up the deportation process significantly. Trump has promised a closed border and mass deportations of millions of people, signaling a dramatic shift in immigration enforcement. The 2024 Republican platform explicitly calls for the ‘largest deportation program in American history,’ underscoring the scale of these proposed measures. Successive policies under the Trump administration allowed for deporting migrants to third countries, further complicating the legal and humanitarian landscape. Mass deportations will harm millions targeted and the families and communities they are part of, creating widespread disruption. Additionally, these actions will rip parents from their children and destroy businesses and livelihoods, further exacerbating the social and economic impact. Trump’s policies have also targeted undocumented children, including proposals to restrict their access to public education and other essential services.

In terms of border security, the plan included constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico southern border and deploying additional federal law enforcement officers. These measures were designed to increase border security and curb illegal immigration. The plan also referenced the potential deployment of national guard troops to the southern border to assist with immigration enforcement and support large-scale operations. Additionally, the plan proposed overhauling the asylum system to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the U.S., reflecting a broader strategy to limit both illegal and legal immigration. Trump’s approach also aims to eliminate asylum protections and revoke humanitarian protections for individuals from conflict zones, further restricting pathways for vulnerable populations. As of August 2025, the Trump administration announced an expanded vetting process for all visa holders, including green card holders, based on social media monitoring. The national sentiment regarding immigration supports a balanced approach that includes border management and pathways to citizenship for long-term residents, highlighting the need for comprehensive reform.

The plan also aimed to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the country and implement a merit-based system for selecting immigrants. This shift would prioritize immigrants based on skills and qualifications rather than family connections or humanitarian needs. Recent polling shows more Americans favor stricter immigration policies than providing a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants, reflecting a growing divide in public opinion on immigration reform.

Immigration Courts and Litigation

The Trump administration’s immigration plan heavily relied on immigration courts to process deportation cases. However, the immigration court system was already overwhelmed, with a backlog of over 1 million cases. The plan to deport up to 20 million undocumented immigrants would have exacerbated this backlog, leading to lengthy delays and significant due process concerns. Deportations during Trump’s presidency were significantly lower than what he now promises, with around 935,089 deportations occurring. The cost of mass deportations could reach tens of billions of dollars according to estimates, raising questions about the feasibility of such an expansive operation. Additionally, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services can initiate rescission proceedings within the first five years of a green card being granted if the person was ineligible at the time of approval, adding another layer of complexity to enforcement efforts. Executive Order 14159, issued in May 2025, directed the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize enforcement against non-citizens for failure to comply with registration, further expanding the scope of enforcement.

Immigration advocates and attorneys prepared to litigate against the administration’s plan, arguing that it violated federal law and the Constitution. They worked tirelessly to provide legal representation to undocumented immigrants facing deportation, which is crucial for ensuring due process and protecting the rights of these individuals. Legal action previously stopped many harmful Trump administration immigration policies, highlighting the importance of advocacy and litigation in countering aggressive enforcement measures. The ACLU and other organizations expect litigation will be a crucial component of resisting Trump’s immigration policies, ensuring that legal challenges remain a key strategy. The National Immigrant Justice Center is also prepared to provide critical legal representation to immigrants and refugees amid anticipated deportation efforts, reinforcing the importance of coordinated advocacy. The threat of mass deportations will provoke a coordinated response from advocates and community organizations, aiming to mitigate the impact on vulnerable populations.

Congressional Action and Response

Congress played a critical role in responding to the Trump administration’s immigration plan. Democrats in Congress were likely to oppose the plan, citing concerns about its constitutionality and the harm it would cause to immigrant communities. They argued that the plan’s aggressive deportation efforts and restrictive policies were not only inhumane but also legally questionable. To counter the administration’s actions, Congress could take several steps. Limiting funding for the administration’s deportation efforts was one approach. Additionally, exercising oversight authority to investigate the administration’s actions and ensure compliance with federal law was another critical measure. Introducing legislation to protect the rights of undocumented immigrants and provide a pathway to citizenship was also on the agenda. These steps were essential to safeguarding the rights and well-being of undocumented immigrants in the face of aggressive federal immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, organizations like the League of United Latin American Citizens are securing funds and legal support to combat proposed immigration policies, demonstrating the importance of grassroots and institutional collaboration.

To counter the administration’s actions, Congress could take several steps. Limiting funding for the administration’s deportation efforts was one approach. Additionally, exercising oversight authority to investigate the administration’s actions and ensure compliance with federal law was another critical measure. Introducing legislation to protect the rights of undocumented immigrants and provide a pathway to citizenship was also on the agenda. These steps were essential to safeguarding the rights and well-being of undocumented immigrants in the face of aggressive federal immigration enforcement.

State and Local Protections

States and localities played a crucial role in protecting the rights of undocumented immigrants. Many cities and states had already implemented sanctuary policies, which limited cooperation with federal immigration authorities and provided protections for undocumented immigrants. These policies were designed to create safe environments where undocumented immigrants could live and work without fear of sudden deportation. Local governments in sanctuary cities are also preparing to combat misinformation and support immigrant communities amid fears of increased federal enforcement under Trump. Local businesses, especially those relying on migrant labor, express the need for immigration reform to address labor shortages as a response to tightened immigration enforcement. A significant portion of individuals in the U.S. undocumented immigrant population are from mixed-status families, leading to increased public concern regarding deportations. Mass deportations will create a pervasive climate of fear, conflict, and stress that affects all students in school districts, further highlighting the broader societal consequences of such policies.

In addition to sanctuary policies, states and localities could take steps to provide legal representation to undocumented immigrants facing deportation. Offering other forms of support and resources, such as access to healthcare and education, was also vital. These local protections were essential in mitigating the impact of federal immigration enforcement and ensuring that undocumented immigrants had access to the resources and support they needed.

Border Security and Immigration Enforcement

The Trump administration’s immigration plan included several provisions related to border security and immigration enforcement. These measures aimed to increase the number of federal law enforcement officers deployed to the border and implement new technologies, such as drones and sensors, to monitor the border. Building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border was a central component of this strategy. To enforce mass deportations, Trump could utilize the military, National Guard, and local law enforcement, further expanding the scope of federal and state collaboration in immigration enforcement.

However, these provisions faced widespread criticism for being ineffective and wasteful. Immigration advocates argued that the administration’s focus on border security and enforcement was misguided. They contended that addressing the root causes of immigration, such as poverty and violence in Central America, would be more effective. Instead of punitive measures, the administration should focus on implementing humane and effective immigration policies that prioritize the safety and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their immigration status. Polls indicate voters generally oppose harsh measures such as banning asylum and family separation at the border, suggesting a preference for more balanced approaches.

Conclusion: Green Card Holder Deportations: The Risks and Reality

While the Trump administration under former President Donald Trump caused green card holders to be anxious, the reality was that removals of LPRs were limited to those who violated immigration laws. President Donald Trump’s policies led to increased scrutiny and enforcement, showing that green card holders need to be vigilant and compliant. President Trump’s administration emphasized enforcement, which created a climate of fear among immigrants. Advocates fear that Trump’s second term will lead to more stringent interpretations of immigration law, affecting families and the local economy. Many in mixed-status families are worried about how deportations could affect them, adding to the anxiety surrounding these policies.

If you’re a green card holder, know your rights and responsibilities. Don’t commit crimes, keep strong ties to the U.S. and consult with an immigration attorney. If you want to be extra safe, become a U.S. citizen.

Stay informed. Consult. Protect.

Final Thoughts — The Legal Future of Permanent Residency Under Trump

Trump’s 2025 immigration enforcement could redefine what it means to be a permanent resident — pushing more long-term immigrants toward naturalization as a protective measure.

While the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides due process safeguards, policy discretion under the executive branch can dramatically shape enforcement outcomes.

For green card holders, the key takeaway is vigilance. Trump’s return to office signals a renewed focus on record audits, old convictions, and administrative removals. Legal experts caution that no LPR should assume immunity from scrutiny.

Citizenship remains the strongest defense. Those eligible should consider applying before policy shifts or enforcement priorities change further.

FAQs: When and How Trump Might Deport Green Card Holders (2025 Guide)

Can Donald Trump legally deport green card holders?

Yes. Under INA Section 237, any lawful permanent resident can be deported if they commit certain crimes, commit fraud, or violate U.S. immigration laws. The President cannot unilaterally strip green cards, but he can direct ICE and DHS to enforce deportation laws more aggressively, expanding which offenses or behaviors trigger removal proceedings.

What laws allow green card holders to be deported?

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides the legal authority. Specifically, INA §§ 237 and 212 list the grounds for deportability and inadmissibility, including criminal convictions, immigration fraud, national security issues, and abandonment of residence. These laws apply regardless of who is president, but enforcement priorities can shift dramatically under executive direction.

How might Trump’s 2025 immigration agenda change deportation priorities?

Trump’s 2025 agenda includes broader enforcement categories such as “identity fraud,” “benefit misuse,” and “national security reevaluations.” DHS and ICE are expected to use data-matching technology and interagency databases to review old immigration files. This could reopen cases that were previously closed or overlooked, targeting lawful residents for minor or decades-old offenses.

Could green card holders with old criminal records be deported?

Yes. Even old convictions can trigger removal if they fall under deportable crimes such as aggravated felonies or crimes involving moral turpitude. Under Trump’s first term, ICE reopened cases from the 1990s and early 2000s. His 2025 policies appear to revive that approach, allowing agents to review long-settled files using digital background systems.

Will lawful permanent residents without criminal records face deportation?

Possibly. While most deportations involve criminal or fraud-related grounds, Trump’s enforcement blueprint directs ICE to “re-evaluate prior lawful admissions.” This could include green card holders who allegedly abandoned their residency, committed paperwork errors, or engaged in suspected immigration fraud during the application process.

What is “abandonment of residency,” and can it lead to deportation?

If a green card holder spends long periods outside the U.S. — usually more than six months per trip, or over one year continuously — CBP officers may conclude that the person abandoned their U.S. residence. Even without intent, extended absences or living abroad can trigger removal proceedings for abandonment of permanent residence.

Can green card holders be deported for fraud or misrepresentation?

Yes. Fraud in obtaining a visa, green card, or public benefits can lead to removal under INA § 237(a)(1)(A). Trump’s policies emphasize expanded document-fraud investigations. The Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) unit within USCIS may refer such cases to ICE for removal, even many years after approval.

What happens if a green card holder commits a crime under Trump’s policies?

Under Trump’s 2025 enforcement directives, ICE can prioritize any LPR with a criminal record — not just those convicted of serious felonies. Crimes like domestic violence, DUI, theft, or controlled-substance possession can lead to deportation. Even non-conviction arrests may trigger closer review or referral for removal proceedings.

Could Trump deport green card holders for using public benefits?

While current law does not permit deportation solely for using legal public benefits, Trump has previously expanded the public charge rule, making it harder to obtain or keep permanent residency if someone is deemed dependent on government aid. His administration could again interpret “public charge” more broadly to target welfare misuse or fraud.

Can long-term green card holders who pay taxes still be deported?

Yes. Paying taxes or living in the U.S. for decades does not guarantee protection. If a permanent resident violates any deportable ground under INA § 237, they may still face removal. However, long-term residence and good moral character can be strong mitigating factors during immigration court proceedings.

Will Trump’s deportation plans include background reviews of existing green cards?

Yes. The 2025 DHS framework reportedly includes “Operation Safeguard,” designed to re-audit millions of existing immigration files. Using digital fingerprint and facial-recognition databases, DHS may flag inconsistencies between old applications, FBI records, and state databases — leading to potential revocation or removal actions.

How does the government start deportation against a green card holder?

The process begins when ICE issues a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court, alleging deportable grounds under the INA. The case then proceeds before an immigration judge (EOIR), where the person can contest the charges or apply for relief such as cancellation of removal, asylum, or adjustment of status.

Can a green card holder lose their status without going to court?

In rare cases, yes. If Customs and Border Protection determines at a U.S. port of entry that a returning LPR has abandoned residency, they can issue a removal order or request the person sign a Record of Abandonment (Form I-407). Once signed, the green card is considered surrendered. Always seek legal advice before signing anything.

Could Trump use local police to help deport green card holders?

Yes. The 287(g) program allows ICE to deputize local police officers to perform certain immigration-enforcement functions. During Trump’s first term, participation expanded significantly. In 2025, this model could return on a larger scale, enabling local arrests to trigger immigration status checks.

Are lawful permanent residents protected from deportation if they serve in the U.S. military?

Service in the military can provide some benefits but not absolute immunity. If an LPR veteran is convicted of a deportable offense, they can still face removal. However, military service and honorable discharge can be powerful equities when seeking relief before an immigration judge.

What agencies carry out deportations of green card holders?

Three primary agencies are involved:

• USCIS investigates potential fraud or eligibility issues.
• ICE (Deportation and Removal Operations) enforces removal orders.
• EOIR (Department of Justice) conducts immigration-court hearings and appeals.

Each operates under DHS or DOJ but follows the President’s enforcement priorities.

Can Trump deport people who already became U.S. citizens?

Naturalized citizens cannot be deported, but their citizenship can be revoked through a process called denaturalization if it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Once denaturalized, the individual reverts to green card status and can then be deported. Trump’s DOJ revived denaturalization units in his first term and may expand them again.

What are the main defenses against deportation for green card holders?

Defenses include:

• Cancellation of removal (showing long-term residence and hardship).
• Adjustment of status to correct a prior error.
• Waivers for certain crimes or fraud.
• Asylum or CAT protection if returning home poses danger.
• Appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) or federal courts.

Can applying for U.S. citizenship stop deportation?

Filing for naturalization does not automatically protect someone from deportation. USCIS conducts criminal and background checks during citizenship processing. If issues are found, the agency can deny the application and refer the case to ICE for potential removal. However, once approved, U.S. citizenship provides full protection.

Could deportation increase for green card holders in 2025–2026?

Yes. Data modeling suggests that under renewed Trump-era policies, deportations of lawful permanent residents could rise sharply — particularly through document fraud, re-entry violations, and reopened cases. Expanded AI-based case review systems make such enforcement logistically easier than in previous years.

How can green card holders protect themselves from deportation risks?

Stay compliant with immigration and tax laws, avoid criminal activity, renew green cards on time, and consult an experienced immigration attorney before traveling abroad or filing complex forms. Filing for citizenship, maintaining records of residence, and responding promptly to any government notices are critical.

What should I do if I receive a Notice to Appear from ICE?

Do not ignore it. Contact an immigration attorney immediately. You have the right to representation and to contest the charges. Missing a court hearing will result in an automatic removal order. Bring all documentation — green card, passport, criminal records, and tax filings — to your lawyer.

Is there a deadline to act before Trump’s deportation policies take effect?

Trump’s immigration agenda began rolling out through executive orders after his 2025 inauguration. Policies evolve quickly; green card holders should act now — renewing expired documents, updating addresses, and seeking naturalization while eligibility rules remain unchanged.

Will deportation reviews target specific nationalities?

Officially, the U.S. government cannot target people based on nationality alone. However, enforcement historically prioritizes regions associated with visa overstays or security concerns. Under Trump, analysts expect increased scrutiny of nationals from countries with higher fraud or security indicators, based on DHS data systems.

Could lawful permanent residents be placed in immigration detention?

Yes. ICE may detain an LPR while removal proceedings are pending, especially if the person has a criminal record or flight risk. Detention can last until release on bond or until a final court decision is issued.

Can deported green card holders ever return to the U.S.?

Possibly. After deportation, an LPR can file a Form I-212 (Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission) and possibly an I-601 waiver if qualifying hardship exists. Approval is difficult but not impossible, especially for those with U.S. citizen family members.

How many green card holders were deported under Trump’s first term?

Between 2017 and 2021, ICE deported tens of thousands of lawful permanent residents annually, many for non-violent offenses or administrative violations. Exact figures varied yearly, but government data showed a consistent upward trend tied to expanded enforcement categories.

Could Trump expand denaturalization or revoke more green cards in 2025?

Yes. Analysts predict renewed funding for “second-look” programs reviewing past naturalizations and green card approvals. The goal is to detect fraud, misrepresentation, or undisclosed criminal activity. Revocations could rise as data-sharing improves between USCIS, ICE, and FBI systems.

Are there warning signs that my green card might be at risk?

Common red flags include:

• Receiving a Notice of Intent to Deny or Revoke from USCIS.
• Pending criminal charges or arrests.
• Past use of inconsistent identities or documents.
• Long absences abroad.
• Government letters requesting updated information.

If any apply, seek legal advice immediately.

Should I hire an immigration lawyer if I’m concerned?

Yes. An experienced immigration lawyer can review your record, identify potential risks, and prepare defenses before enforcement actions begin. Proactive legal strategy is the most effective protection against unexpected deportation or green card revocation.

Bottom Line:
While lawful permanent residents have strong rights, they are not immune from removal. Trump’s 2025 policies could expand enforcement beyond traditional criminal grounds, using technology and administrative audits to target older cases. Green card holders should stay informed, maintain compliance, and consult an attorney early to safeguard their status

Protect Your Green Card — Act Before It’s Too Late

If you are a green card holder who has received a Notice to Appear (NTA), been contacted by ICE, or fears being placed in removal proceedings under Trump’s 2025 immigration enforcement agenda, you cannot afford to wait. Every decision — every form, every hearing date — can determine whether you remain in the United States or face deportation.

Attorney Richard T. Herman, a nationally recognized immigration lawyer with over 30 years of experience, has successfully defended thousands of immigrants facing deportation, visa revocation, and denaturalization. As co-author of Immigrant, Inc., he is more than an attorney — he is an evangelist for the economic and community power of immigrants, fighting every day to ensure families remain together and lawful residents keep their American dream alive.

Why contact Attorney Richard Herman now:

• He understands how Trump’s 2025 deportation priorities are reshaping the risk landscape for lawful permanent residents.
• He knows the law — INA §§ 237, 240, and 316 — and how to leverage every waiver, defense, and procedural safeguard to protect your green card.
• He leads a nationwide team with proven experience before USCIS, ICE, and EOIR, offering full representation from bond hearings to appeals before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
• His compassionate, multilingual team provides guidance through Zoom, WhatsApp, Skype, or in-office meetings — wherever you are.

Don’t face the system alone. The sooner you act, the stronger your defense.

➡️ Schedule a confidential consultation today with Richard T. Herman at LawFirm4Immigrants.com/book-consultation.
Get clarity, strategy, and protection — from a lawyer who has spent three decades helping immigrants stay, thrive, and succeed in America.

Comprehensive Resource List: Deportation of Green Card Holders & Defense (Government + Professional Associations)

Foundational Law & Policy (Statutes, Regulations, Manuals)

• Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) – Core Removal Provisions: Read the primary statutory grounds and procedures in the INA, including deportability, inadmissibility, and removal hearings via the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the U.S. Code Title 8.
• Federal Regulations (8 C.F.R.) – Procedures & Evidence: Consult controlling regulations for charging documents, evidence, motions, and relief in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
• USCIS Policy Manual – Status, Fraud, Abandonment: Officer-facing guidance on permanent residence maintenance, fraud determinations, and revocations in the USCIS Policy Manual.
• EOIR Policy & Practice Resources: Judge, clerk, and practitioner references (practice manual, standing orders, precedents) in the EOIR (DOJ) Policy & Law Library.

Notices to Appear, Immigration Court Practice & Appeals

• EOIR Immigration Court Practice Manual: Filing standards, motions, evidence, timelines, and ethics in the Immigration Court Practice Manual.
• EOIR BIA Practice Manual: Appellate rules, briefing schedules, emergency motions, and stays in the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.
• Case Status, Hearing Info, and eRegistry: Access hearing info, filings, and case lookup via EOIR Case Portal & Information.
• DOJ Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL): Federal-court litigation guidance and resources through OIL (DOJ).

Grounds of Deportability & Charging Theories (INA § 237 / § 212)

• Deportable & Inadmissible Offenses (Overview): Statutory overviews and officer guidance through USCIS Law & Policy.
• Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, Aggravated Felonies, Controlled Substances: Review statutory text and annotations via U.S. Code Title 8 and case-processing notes in the EOIR Law Library.
• Fraud/Misrepresentation & Visa/Benefit Revocation: Applicable standards and revocation procedures in the USCIS Policy Manual.

Relief from Removal & Forms of Protection

• Cancellation of Removal (LPR & Non-LPR): Eligibility, equities, hardship, and documentation standards are covered across EOIR resources and the USCIS Policy Manual.
• Waivers (Fraud/Criminal) & Adjustment of Status: Waiver frameworks, evidentiary burdens, and adjustment interplay in USCIS Law & Policy.
• Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection: Elements, country conditions, and CAT standards via EOIR Guidance and USCIS Humanitarian Programs.
• Voluntary Departure: Requirements, deadlines, and consequences detailed in EOIR references.

Detention, Bond, Supervision & Post-Order Issues

• ICE ERO (Deportation & Removal Operations): Detention guidance, supervision, and post-order compliance through ICE ERO.
• Detainee Locator & Facility Information: Find individuals and facility details using the ICE Detainee Locator.
• Bond Hearings & Custody Redeterminations: Court procedures, standards, and motions in the EOIR Practice Manual.
• Stays of Removal & Post-Order Motions: Appellate tools and emergency relief options via the BIA Practice Manual.

Travel, Re-Entry, and Abandonment of Residence

• Maintaining Permanent Residence (Travel/Taxes/Documentation): Best practices and reentry documentation in USCIS: Maintaining Permanent Residence.
• Reentry Permits & Advance Parole (Form I-131): Long-trip planning and documentation through USCIS Form I-131.
• Returning Residents (SB-1 Visa) & CBP Inspection: Port-of-entry considerations and returning resident process via U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Department of State – Immigrant Visas.

Naturalization Strategy & Denaturalization Risks

• Naturalization Eligibility, Good Moral Character, Travel/Taxes: Pathway, timelines, and risk mitigation in USCIS Citizenship & Naturalization.
• Name/Identity, Old Records & “Second Look” Risks: File-integrity checks and potential referrals detailed across USCIS Policy and DOJ/OIL.
• Denaturalization (Fraud/Misrepresentation): DOJ authority, litigation posture, and recent filings via DOJ Civil Division – Denaturalization.

Data, Research & Official Reporting

• DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: Annual admissions, removals, and status data in the DHS Immigration Statistics portal.
• USCIS Immigration & Citizenship Data: Form-level trends (I-485, N-400, I-751, etc.) and backlogs via USCIS Data & Reports.
• ICE, CBP, and EOIR Operational Updates: Enforcement releases, policy memos, and program announcements through ICE Newsroom, CBP Newsroom, and EOIR News.

Official Directories for Legal Help & Accredited Providers

• EOIR Pro Bono Legal Service Providers: Court-by-court directory of free/low-cost representation via EOIR Pro Bono Providers.
• DOJ-Recognized Organizations & Accredited Representatives: Nonprofit providers authorized to represent immigrants through DOJ Recognition & Accreditation.
• Legal Orientation & Helpdesks (Detained/Non-Detained): Education programs and orientation materials via EOIR Programs & Initiatives.

Professional Associations & Practitioner-Focused Defense Resources

While not government entities, the associations below are essential for defense strategy, training, amicus briefs, and policy updates that directly impact LPR removal cases.

• American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA): National bar association offering practice advisories, liaison updates, and removal-defense resources via AILA.
• National Immigration Project (NIPNLG): Expert removal-defense toolkits (criminal-immigration, motions to reopen, waivers) via NIPNLG.
• American Bar Association – Commission on Immigration: Standards, detention oversight, and pro bono initiatives through ABA Commission on Immigration.
• Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC): Training, technical assistance, and model filings for nonprofits via CLINIC.
• National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC): Litigation support, practice materials, and pro bono placements through NIJC.
• American Immigration Council: Research, impact litigation, and practice manuals via American Immigration Council.

Compliance, Records, and Case Preparation

• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for Immigration Records: Request A-files and agency records via USCIS FOIA, ICE FOIA, CBP FOIA, and DOJ EOIR FOIA.
• FBI Identity History Summary (Rap Sheet): Obtain national criminal history for immigration case prep via FBI Identity History Summary Checks.
• Selective Service Registration (for Eligibility Issues): Verify status or register at Selective Service System.
• Social Security & IRS Records (Taxes/Residence Evidence): Access wage/tax documentation via SSA and IRS Transcripts.

Worksite, Compliance & Identity

• I-9 Employment Eligibility & E-Verify: Employer verification duties and audits through USCIS I-9 Central and E-Verify.
• REAL ID, Passports, and Identity Documents: Identity-document standards and compliance via DHS REAL ID and Department of State – Passports.

Enforcement Programs & Interagency Cooperation

• ICE 287(g) Program (State/Local Partnerships): How local law enforcement collaborates with ICE under delegated authority in ICE 287(g).
• Secure Communities & Biometric Sharing: Biometric checks and information exchanges across agencies detailed by DHS and ICE.
• Fraud Detection & National Security (FDNS): USCIS fraud screening and referral processes in the USCIS Policy Manual.

Courtroom Tools: Country Conditions, Evidence & Expert Use

• U.S. State Department Country Reports: Human rights, persecution, and security conditions used in asylum/CAT claims via State Department Country Reports.
• Executive Office for Immigration Review (Reference Materials): Benchbooks, LPR-specific guidance, and key precedent summaries within the EOIR Law Library.
• Federal Register (Rules, Notices, Interim Final Rules): Track regulatory changes, interim policies, and requests for comment in the Federal Register.

Emergency & Practical Checklists

• Know Your Rights (Government Resources): Official civil rights and complaint avenues (CRCL) and agency contact points via DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
• CBP Traveler Communications & Secondary Inspection: Port-of-entry expectations, secondary inspection, and deferred inspection via CBP Traveler Info.
• USCIS Change of Address (AR-11) & Case Updates: Maintain compliance and receive notices via USCIS Change of Address and USCIS Case Status.

Pro Tips for Using These Resources

• Start with statute/regulation (INA and 8 C.F.R.), then confirm agency policy (USCIS, EOIR).
• For any NTA or court notice, consult the EOIR Practice Manual and consider immediate BIA stay strategies where appropriate.
• Always FOIA your A-file and obtain FBI and court records early; accurate rap sheets and charging documents drive relief eligibility.
• Use DHS/EOIR data to support discretionary arguments (equities, rehabilitation, hardship).
• Cross-check relief (e.g., cancellation, waivers, asylum/CAT) against current country reports and USCIS/DOJ guidance.

Social and Family Impact of Deportation

The social and family consequences of mass deportation under a second Trump administration would be profound, touching every corner of American society. Former president Donald Trump’s renewed promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants would not only target individuals without legal status, but would also deeply disrupt immigrant families, mixed-status households, and entire communities.

One of the most devastating effects of these deportation efforts would be the forced separation of families. Many immigrant families in the U.S. include both citizens and non-citizens—children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, spouses with different immigration statuses, and extended relatives living together. When federal law enforcement officers, including Customs Enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), conduct immigration raids in collaboration with local law enforcement, the result is often the sudden removal of a parent or breadwinner. Children of undocumented parents face the trauma of losing a caregiver, with some forced into foster care or left to navigate life on their own. The emotional and psychological toll on these children and their families is immeasurable, leading to long-term consequences for their well-being and development.

The impact of mass deportations extends beyond the home. Immigrant communities as a whole experience heightened fear and anxiety, especially when federal agencies ramp up immigration raids and detentions. The presence of federal agents and local law enforcement conducting joint operations can erode trust in public institutions, making it less likely for undocumented immigrants or their family members to report crimes, seek medical care, or access essential services. This climate of fear undermines public safety and community cohesion.

Navigating the immigration system becomes even more challenging under stricter immigration policies. The Trump administration’s approach would make it harder for immigrants to secure legal representation, understand their rights, or pursue legal status through employment-based visas or asylum. Asylum seekers and those seeking humanitarian protections would face additional barriers, with the use of the Alien Enemies Act and other federal law provisions raising serious concerns about due process and the erosion of legal protections. The expansion of detention centers and the increased use of federal agencies to enforce deportation would further strain the system, leaving many without access to fair hearings or adequate legal support.

The economic fallout from mass deportations would also be significant. Immigrant workers are vital to industries such as agriculture, construction, and healthcare. Removing millions of undocumented immigrants would create severe labor shortages, disrupt supply chains, and drive up costs for consumers. The loss of immigrant entrepreneurs and small business owners would stifle job creation and economic growth, with estimates suggesting that mass deportations could cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars.

In summary, the social and family impact of deportation under the second Trump administration would be severe and far-reaching. The trump administration’s immigration policies, including mass deportations and stricter enforcement, would lead to widespread family separation, trauma, and economic disruption. These consequences highlight the urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform that protects families, supports immigrant communities, and upholds the principles of due process and fairness in the immigration system.

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:

1. Illegally Obtained Citizenship: Failing to meet the requirements.
2. 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:

1. Willful Concealment: The applicant intentionally misrepresented or withheld information.
2. 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

1. 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.
2. Legislative Changes: Will try to limit family-based immigration and visa programs.
3. 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

1. 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

1. 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).

2. 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

1. 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.

2. Referral

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

3. Filing

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

4. Court Proceedings

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

5. 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

1. 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.

2. Referral

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

3. Filing a Case

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

4. Proceedings

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

5. 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:

1. Willfulness: The individual knowingly hid or falsified information.
2. Concealment or Misrepresentation: False information or omissions during the naturalization process.
3. Materiality: The concealed or false fact was relevant to the applicant’s eligibility.
4. 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

1. 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.

2. Investigation and Recommendation:

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

3. 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

1. The information doesn’t have to have disqualified the applicant from naturalization; it just has to be relevant enough to have influenced the decision.
2. 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

1. Kungys v. United States

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

2. Maslenjak v. United States

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

3. 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

1. 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.

2. 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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

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

.