The new Justice Department has gone further than Trump’s first term in cracking down on immigration, making denaturalization a top enforcement priority. This has resulted in a dramatic spike in the number of cases brought against naturalized citizens.
What exactly is denaturalization, and why should you be concerned that it’s becoming a household name? Let’s go back through some legal history of the process before we discuss how the current presidential administration is attempting to change it.
Denatural History
If you know little about denaturalization, that’s kind of the point: it’s supposed to be extremely rare. The practice dates back to the early 20th century, but it has never been used as it is now.
For most of the country’s history, denaturalization in the United States was a legal process most often reserved for extreme cases. It was meant for the worst offenders. Denaturalized people have included war criminals, perpetrators of genocide, threats to national security, and violent felons (or, during the Cold War, those affiliated with communist or anti-government groups). Between 1907 and 1967, some 22,000 people were stripped of their U.S. citizenship, often on the basis of political affiliations deemed subversive or disloyal. These mass denaturalizations reflected the anxieties of the era, particularly during periods of war and ideological conflict.
Over time, the process was refined and constrained by the courts, but it remained a tool used primarily in cases involving serious crimes or fraud. Prior to the 21st century, immigration officials could initiate denaturalization through administrative procedures. This changed when a federal court in 2001 stripped officials of that power, mandating that denaturalization could only occur through judicial proceedings. This shift reflected a growing recognition of the gravity of citizenship and the need for due process protections before such a fundamental right could be revoked.
Maslenjak v. United States
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling that significantly narrowed the grounds on which the U.S. government could pursue denaturalization against citizens. The case concerned a naturalized U.S. citizen, Divna Maslenjak, who had been naturalized via asylum. The U.S. government accused Maslenjak of lying on her asylum application about her husband's wartime service during the Bosnian conflict. She was denaturalized and criminally convicted under a statute that criminalizes "knowingly procur[ing] naturalization in violation of law." The question was whether the government needed to prove that her false statements actually mattered to the decision to grant her citizenship--or was it simply enough that she made a false statement (regardless of its importance or effect)?
SCOTUS unanimously ruled that the answer was the former. The Court held that minor misrepresentations or omissions made by citizenship applicants (like small errors or irrelevant inaccuracies on naturalization forms) cannot serve as a valid basis for stripping someone of their citizenship. The justices reasoned that only false statements or concealments that are "material" (meaning they would have actually influenced the government's decision to grant citizenship) could justify such a severe penalty.
This decision was rooted in the recognition that naturalization is a fundamental change in a person’s legal status, carrying profound consequences, and that revoking citizenship should not hinge on trivial or harmless mistakes. The ruling thus established an important safeguard for naturalized Americans, ensuring that only serious, intentional deception, rather than innocent errors or immaterial falsehoods, could threaten their status as U.S. citizens.
Politics Over Due Process
But with President Trump, things appear different. Zohran Mamdani, for example, is a Democratic Party's mayoral nominee for New York City. He’s a naturalized U.S. citizen, but he’s gotten on Trump’s bad side due to his anti-ICE rhetoric and public statements on Hamas. Now, the administration is suggesting stripping Mamdani of his citizenship by alleging that he concealed support for terrorism during his naturalization process. Critics argue that the move is politically motivated. It doesn’t target Mamdani for any proven crime, but for his outspoken advocacy for Palestinian rights and left-wing policies. This can also serve as a warning to other immigrants who might challenge the administration’s priorities.
Nor does it seem to matter how influential these figures are. For example, Trump and senior officials openly discussed the possibility of stripping citizenship from Elon Musk (also a naturalized citizen) after a public feud he had with the president. Musk vocally opposed Trump’s sweeping spending bill, criticizing it for not cutting enough government programs and for reducing green energy tax credits that could negatively impact Musk’s company, Tesla. Targeting Musk in this way seems to not have been about any alleged legal wrongdoing, but rather about using the threat of denaturalization and deportation to intimidate and chill political opposition.
Trump Versus Public Opinion
The administration’s actions are part of a broader crackdown on foreign-born citizens, especially those whose views or activism are seen as oppositional or threatening to Trump’s agenda. But while the feds may be all for expanding denaturalization, recent polling shows that most voters strongly oppose it. A Data for Progress poll finds that 70% of voters, including a majority of Independents and half of Republicans, do not believe the president should have the authority to revoke citizenship. Voters overwhelmingly think that deportation cases should be handled by the courts, not the executive branch.
But how much does the court of public opinion matter on an issue like this? Let’s just say that courts of judges and justices will play a much bigger part, at least for the next four years.
Related Resources:
- Trump Administration Pauses the Scheduling of New Visa Interviews for Potential International Students (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- SCOTUS Upholds Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order on a Technicality (For Now) (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- The Naturalization Process (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
