Something has Shifted Quietly in the way the U.S. Government treats its Citizens. Not Immigrants waiting for Green Cards, not Visa Holders living on Borrowed time, but People who Already went through the Process, Raised their Right Hand, took the Oath, and became Americans. Some of them have been Citizens for Decades. They have Jobs, Families, Mortgages, and Passports. And now, for the First time in Modern History, they are being told that Citizenship might Not be as Permanent as they thought.
Within the past Week, a New Wave of Details has emerged about an Aggressive Push by the Trump (R) Administration to Strip Naturalized Americans of their Citizenship, a Legal Process called Denaturalization. The Number of People currently Targeted is 384. Officials are already Calling that the “First Wave.” Legal Scholars, Immigration Lawyers, and Civil Liberties Advocates, are Alarmed about exactly what Denaturalization is, how Rarely it has been used Historically, and what the Administration’s New Approach means for the roughly 20 Million Foreign-Born Americans who hold U.S. Citizenship today.
Denaturalization is not Deportation. It’s something that has to happen First. Deportation Removes Non Citizens from the Country. With Civil Denaturalization, the Government Files a Lawsuit to Strip People’s U.S. Citizenship after they have already become Citizens, turning them back into Mon-Citizens who can then be Deported.
The Government can only do this in Specific situations. It must Prove that Someone “Illegally Procured” Citizenship by Not Meeting the Requirements, or that they Lied or Hid Important Facts during the Citizenship Process. Under Federal Law, the Standards are Deliberately High. “For civil revocation of naturalization, the burden of proof is clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) noted on its
Website.
The Types of Cases that have Historically led to Denaturalization are Extreme. Between 1990 and 2017, the Government Filed an average of 11 Denaturalization Cases per year, Stripping Citizenship from People who Committed Fraud, such as Sham Marriages, or those who Hid their Participation in War Crimes, like Nazi War Criminals who Entered the Country under False Names. That was the Benchmark. What’s happening Now is something Else Entirely. he DOJ Memo listed 10 Categories of Cases that should take Priority for Denaturalization. These included: Cases against Individuals who “pose a potential danger to national security,” “furthered the unlawful enterprise” of criminal organizations, engaged in Fraud, and “any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.” That Final, Open-Ended Category is the One Legal Advocates say Deserves Watching.
The Justice Department (DOJ) has Identified 384 Foreign-Born Americans whose Citizenship it wants to Revoke, as part of a Push to Increase the Pace of Denaturalizations by Assigning the Cases to Prosecutors in Dozens of U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the Country. Senior Justice Department Officials told Colleagues during a Meeting last week, that Civil Litigators in 39 Regional Offices would soon be Assigned to File Denaturalization Cases against those Individuals.
During that Meeting, Francey Hakes (R), the Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, described the 384 Individuals identified for Denaturalization as “the first wave of cases” the Government intended to Pursue. DOJ’s Deputy Director for Communications Matthew Tragesser (R) said: “Under the leadership of President Trump and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche the Department is pursuing the highest volume of denaturalization referrals in history, thanks to close partnerships with DHS and USCIS.”
Between 1990 and 2017, the U.S. Averaged approximately 11 Denaturalization Cases per year. Even during the First Trump Administration, when Denaturalization efforts Iintensified, the DOJ filed just over 100 Cases Total between 2017 and early 2025. By Contrast, New Guidance calls for Up to 2,400 Referrals Annually, a more than Twentyfold Increase over Historical Averages. The Biden (D) Administration Filed only 24 Denaturalization Cases during its Entire Tenure.
A Document Circulated to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Department (USCIS) stated that the Administration wants to Denaturalize 100 to 200 People per Month in 2026. A 6/2025 Memo Started This: The Trump Administration’s Plans to Pursue Mass Denaturalization first came to Light last 6/2025, when Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate (R) issued an Internal Memo calling on the DOJ’s Civil Division to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.”
The DOJ Memo establishes 10 Priority Categories for Denaturalization Cases. They Range from National Security Threats and War Crimes to various forms of Fraud, Financial Crimes, and, most Broadly, any other Cases the Department deems “sufficiently important to pursue.” This “maximal enforcement” approach means Pursuing Not just Clear Cases of Fraud, but also any Case where Evidence might Support taking away Citizenship, No matter how Weak or Old the Evidence is. That Last Category is precisely what worries Legal Experts. Critics have Pointed Out that DOJ Officials are calling 384 Cases “just the first wave,” while Pulling Civil Litigators off Health Care Fraud and Civil Rights Enforcement to Work on Denaturalization instead.
The Approach also Represents a Structural Shift in how Cases are Handled. Prosecutors in 39 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices will handle the Cases, a Departure from the Past Practice of Relying on the DOJ’s Specialized Office of Immigration Litigation. Less Experienced Litigators are now being Assigned to Handle some of the Most Constitutionally Sensitive Cases in Immigration Law. For People who Care about how Immigration Policy is Reshaping Life for Legal Residents, this is a Significant Development. The Legal Problems Experts Are Flagging: There are Two Concerns that keep coming up among Legal Scholars. The First is Constitutional. The Second is Practical.
On the Constitutional Side, the Courts have Long Imposed Strict Limits on the Government’s Power to Remove Citizenship. This Expansion of Denaturalization efforts runs Counter to Supreme Court Precedent. In 1943, the High Court Emphasized that Citizenship should Not be taken away Lightly, noting that “the facts and the law should be construed as far as is reasonably possible in favor of the citizen.” In Case after Case, the Court has Rejected Attempts by the Government to Revoke Citizenship as Inconsistent with First and 14th Amendment Protections.
The Landmark 1967 Case
Afroyim v. Rusk Matters here too. The Supreme Court in that Decision was Focused on Protecting Existing Citizens from Losing their Citizenship. The Constitutional Principle behind the Decision, that Citizenship is a Fundamental Right which Can’t be Arbitrarily taken Away by Whoever happens to be in Power, Applies Equally to How the Government Handles Denaturalization Cases Today.
On the Practical Side, using Civil Proceedings instead of Criminal Ones gives the Government a Significant Procedural Advantage, and Critics say that’s Part of the Point. Law Professors Cassandra Burke Robertson and Irina D. Manta Argued in a 2019 Article in the NYU Law Review that Stripping Americans of Citizenship through the Route of Civil Litigation Not only Violates Substantive and Procedural Due Process, but also Infringes on the Rights Guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Their Analysis remains Highly Cited in Current Legal Discussions.
The Government is pursuing Denaturalization as a Civil-Litigation Remedy and Not just a Criminal Sanction, a Choice that Prosecutors find Advantageous because Civil Proceedings come with a Lower Burden of Proof, No Guarantee of Counsel to the Defendant, and No Statute of Limitations. One Case illustrates the Risk. Research Documented the Case of Baljinder Singh, whose Citizenship was Revoked based on a Name Discrepancy that could Easily have Resulted from a Translator’s Error rather than Intentional Fraud.
The Trump Administration’s Strategy of Distributing Denaturalization Cases across 39 U.S. aAtorneys’ Offices, many now Staffed by Less Experienced Prosecutors, handling Unfamiliar Constitutional Terrain, may prove Counterproductive. These Cases will come before Dozens of Federal Judges, creating Opportunities for Multiple Courts to Rule against the Policy. The Dual Citizenship Bill Adding Another Layer: Alongside the Denaturalization Push, a Separate Legislative Proposal is also drawing Attention. Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) introduced the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 on 12/1/2025, Legislation that would Eliminate Dual Citizenship for U.S. Citizens by Requiring them to hold “sole and exclusive allegiance” to the U.S.
Under the Bill, those who have Dual Citizenship would have to Submit a Written Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship to the Secretary of State, or a Written Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship to the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), No later than One year after the Enactment of the Act. An Individual who doesn’t Comply would be Deemed to have Voluntarily Relinquished U.S. Citizenship. While the U.S. Government doesn’t keep Statistics on Dual Citizens, it’s estimated that more than 40 Million Americans, many of whom are Mexican-Americans, are Eligible for Dual Citizenship, according to International Living.
Legal Analysts are Skeptical the Bill could Survive a Constitutional Challenge. Multiple Supreme Court Cases have Established Dual Citizenship as a Constitutional Right, including
Talbot v. Jansen (1795), which Ruled that U.S. Citizens who Acquire Foreign Citizenship do Not have to Waive their U.S. Citizenship, and
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), Ruled that a U.S. Citizen Cannot Lose their Citizenship, unless they Willingly Surrender it.
The most Telling Fact about Senator Bernie Moreno’s (R-OH) Bill, is that it has Zero Co-Sponsors. Not a Single other Senator – Republican or Democrat – has Signed on to Support it. The Bill has been Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and has Not Advanced further. The Chilling Effect on Millions: Even Setting aside whether any Individual Case Succeeds, the Broader Impact of this Policy Push is already being Felt. About 20 Million Naturalized Americans now must worry that any Mistake in their Decades-Old Immigration Paperwork, could Cost them their Citizenship. This Policy Effectively Creates Two different Ttypes of American Citizens. Native-Born Americans Never have to worry about Losing their Citizenship, No matter what they Do. But Naturalized Americans face Ongoing Vulnerability that can Last their Entire Lives.
Roughly 800,000 People become Naturalized Citizens every Year, according to DHS. Each of those People now enters the System knowing that their Status is Subject to a Level of Ongoing Scrutiny that was simply Not Present a Decade ago. Amanda Frost, a Law Professor at the University of Virginia, said: “The message it sends is that naturalized citizens don’t have the same rights and stability as native-born citizens. The government has used this power in the past to target people it views as political opponents.”
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has described this as a Dangerous Escalation, noting that the Administration’s Goal may Not be Primarily to Win in Court. AILA Senior Director of Government Relations Shev Dalal-Dheini explained that Federal Prosecutors face a High Bar in such Cases and Questioned whether the Administration’s Goal was to Win in Court or to Create Fear and Chaos.
If you or someone you know is a Naturalized Citizen with any Concerns about Past Immigration Paperwork, Inconsistencies in Old Records, or Anything that could be Misread as Fraud, Consulting a Qualified Immigration Attorney is a Sensible Step. Not because Citizenship is about to Disappear Overnight, but because the Landscape is clearly Changing, and being Informed is the Best Protection. The Courts are already Pushing Back on Multiple Immigration Enforcement Actions, the Trump Administration’s Directive, Combined with Court Procedures that Lack Basic Constitutional Protections, Risks Creating a System that the Supreme Court has Specifically Warned against, in which a Group of Citizens Temporarily in Office can Deprive another Group of Citizens of their Citizenship. Whether the Judiciary holds that Line on Ddenaturalization remains to be seen.
Michael H. Drucker
