Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's DOJ issues memo on plan to strip citizenship from some naturalized Americans
The recent memo encourages the Justice Departments Civil Division to prioritize efforts to strip some Americans of their citizenship.
MSNBC: Trumpâs DOJ issues memo on plan to strip citizenship from some naturalized Americans www.msnbc.com/top-stories/...
— (@jwwcan.bsky.social) 2025-06-30T22:45:43.522Z
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/denaturalization-citizens-justice-department-trump-rcna216073
As the White House press secretary openly floats the idea of investigating New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani to possibly strip him of his citizenship, after a bigoted proposal from Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., the administration appears to be revving up its denaturalization plans.
NPR reported Monday on a Justice Department memo from June 11, which advises prosecutors in the DOJs Civil Division to prioritize the denaturalization of various naturalized citizens over alleged infractions ranging from war crimes to material misrepresentations in their citizenship applications.
In his first term, Trump expanded former President Barack Obamas denaturalization policies. An expert told NPR why the new memos call to use civil litigation for this effort is particularly disturbing:
On the heels of Fridays Supreme Court ruling in the birthright citizenship case which undercut lower courts ability to stop the executive branch from pursuing policies of disputed legality its safe to wonder whether and how the administration might wield its powers to target more Americans.
The DOJ memo asserts a broad latitude for interpretation as to what conduct might warrant denaturalization proceedings against a citizen. It lays out a list of transgressions, including torture and human trafficking, but also calls on the DOJs Civil Division to target an individual that either illegally procured naturalization or procured naturalization by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation and, rather vaguely, individuals who pose a potential danger to national security. The memo also prioritizes the ominously open-ended any other cases ... that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.
NPR reported Monday on a Justice Department memo from June 11, which advises prosecutors in the DOJs Civil Division to prioritize the denaturalization of various naturalized citizens over alleged infractions ranging from war crimes to material misrepresentations in their citizenship applications.
In his first term, Trump expanded former President Barack Obamas denaturalization policies. An expert told NPR why the new memos call to use civil litigation for this effort is particularly disturbing:
The DOJ memo says that the federal government will pursue denaturalization cases via civil litigation an especially concerning move, said Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. In civil proceedings, any individual subject to denaturalization is not entitled to an attorney, Robertson said; there is also a lower burden of proof for the government to reach, and it is far easier and faster to reach a conclusion in these cases. Robertson says that stripping Americans of citizenship through civil litigation violates due process and infringes on the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
On the heels of Fridays Supreme Court ruling in the birthright citizenship case which undercut lower courts ability to stop the executive branch from pursuing policies of disputed legality its safe to wonder whether and how the administration might wield its powers to target more Americans.
The DOJ memo asserts a broad latitude for interpretation as to what conduct might warrant denaturalization proceedings against a citizen. It lays out a list of transgressions, including torture and human trafficking, but also calls on the DOJs Civil Division to target an individual that either illegally procured naturalization or procured naturalization by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation and, rather vaguely, individuals who pose a potential danger to national security. The memo also prioritizes the ominously open-ended any other cases ... that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump's DOJ issues memo on plan to strip citizenship from some naturalized Americans (Original Post)
LetMyPeopleVote
Jul 2025
OP
LetMyPeopleVote
(175,026 posts)1. Trump is now calling for deporting Americans:
atreides1
(16,799 posts)2. Okay
Let's start with Melania...
sdfernando
(6,023 posts)3. Deport that first harlot!
Strip (appropriate word) her of citizenship!
LetMyPeopleVote
(175,026 posts)4. Professor Vladeck- Denaturalization and Expatriation
Here is a good analysis of denaturalization. It would be almost impossible for trump to strip Rosie of her citizenship without a nasty lawsuit
With President Trump threatening to revoke Rosie OâDonnellâs citizenship, it seems like a good time to re-up my explainer on denaturalization and expatriation â and why what Trump is suggesting is ⦠not viable:
— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2025-07-12T18:40:26.584Z
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/146-denaturalization-and-expatriation
For good reasons, it is difficult to denaturalize a U.S. citizen and even harder to expatriate one. As this weeks Long Read documents, Congress has provided for only a handful of circumstances in which the executive branch is empowered to pursue such a move; and the Supreme Court has recognized meaningful constitutional limits (and an entitlement to meaningful judicial review) even in those cases. As were seeing so often with the current administration, there may well be a legal avenue for at least some of what it appears to want to accomplish, but that legal avenue has too much, you know, law, interposing both substantive limits and procedural requirements between the President and his policy preferences......
Historically, and for good reasons, it has been exceptionally difficult for the government to involuntarily revoke an Americans citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1481 identifies seven classes of activities that can subject citizens to a loss of citizenship:
As should be clear from this list, most of the circumstances involve behavior in which an individual has manifested a specific and voluntary desire to surrender their citizenshipand not when citizenship has been revoked as a punishment. And even for subsection (a)(7), the one part that doesnt seem to require that on its face, the statute today includes an umbrella conditionthat loss of citizenship depends upon whether the individual voluntarily perform[ed] any of the [specified] acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.......
Section 1481 applies to all U.S. citizens. For naturalized citizens (i.e., those who become citizens after birth), theres one additional basis for revoking citizenshipand thats if and only if their citizenship was illegally procured or . . . procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation. Here, too, the statute (and, almost certainly, the Constitution) requires notice and meaningful judicial review before an Americans citizenship can be stripped. As 8 U.S.C. § 1451(b) mandates,
Of course, the government can pursue denaturalization on broader grounds than it can pursue expatriationsince the Constitution doesnt create a substantive right to naturalization in the same way it does for birthright citizenship. But the key is that here, too, the Supreme Court has regularly insisted not only on meaningful judicial review of denaturalization proceedings, but on construing the relevant statutes narrowlyincluding, most recently, in 2017. (For much more on the complexities of denaturalization, see this fantastic February 2020 Practice Advisory from the National Lawyers Guild and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.)
In other words, although denaturalization is potentially available in more cases than expatriation, it still requires meaningful, individualized judicial reviewreview that holds the government to a significant burden in providing that an individual wrongfully obtained their citizenship, and not just that they engaged in questionable behavior thereafter. There is, simply, no easy, fast path to revoking any Americans citizenship without their consentand there hasnt been for decades. That may not stop the current administration from trying it anyway, or from removing citizens unlawfully and then resisting the legal consequences. But its important to be clear on what the actual legal authority for such maneuvers would be. Here, there isnt any.
Historically, and for good reasons, it has been exceptionally difficult for the government to involuntarily revoke an Americans citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1481 identifies seven classes of activities that can subject citizens to a loss of citizenship:
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
As should be clear from this list, most of the circumstances involve behavior in which an individual has manifested a specific and voluntary desire to surrender their citizenshipand not when citizenship has been revoked as a punishment. And even for subsection (a)(7), the one part that doesnt seem to require that on its face, the statute today includes an umbrella conditionthat loss of citizenship depends upon whether the individual voluntarily perform[ed] any of the [specified] acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.......
Section 1481 applies to all U.S. citizens. For naturalized citizens (i.e., those who become citizens after birth), theres one additional basis for revoking citizenshipand thats if and only if their citizenship was illegally procured or . . . procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation. Here, too, the statute (and, almost certainly, the Constitution) requires notice and meaningful judicial review before an Americans citizenship can be stripped. As 8 U.S.C. § 1451(b) mandates,
The party to whom was granted the naturalization alleged to have been illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation shall, in any such proceedings under subsection (a) of this section, have sixty days personal notice, unless waived by such party, in which to make answers to the petition of the United States . . . .
Of course, the government can pursue denaturalization on broader grounds than it can pursue expatriationsince the Constitution doesnt create a substantive right to naturalization in the same way it does for birthright citizenship. But the key is that here, too, the Supreme Court has regularly insisted not only on meaningful judicial review of denaturalization proceedings, but on construing the relevant statutes narrowlyincluding, most recently, in 2017. (For much more on the complexities of denaturalization, see this fantastic February 2020 Practice Advisory from the National Lawyers Guild and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.)
In other words, although denaturalization is potentially available in more cases than expatriation, it still requires meaningful, individualized judicial reviewreview that holds the government to a significant burden in providing that an individual wrongfully obtained their citizenship, and not just that they engaged in questionable behavior thereafter. There is, simply, no easy, fast path to revoking any Americans citizenship without their consentand there hasnt been for decades. That may not stop the current administration from trying it anyway, or from removing citizens unlawfully and then resisting the legal consequences. But its important to be clear on what the actual legal authority for such maneuvers would be. Here, there isnt any.
I was so sad to see Professor Vladeck leave the University of Texas Law School.