Trump’s denaturalization push raises alarms over citizenship rights

Former President Donald Trump has reignited debates over the scope of U.S. citizenship with rhetoric targeting high-profile figures like Elon Musk and Zohran Mamdani. While legal experts dismiss such deportation threats as unconstitutional, Trump’s renewed focus on denaturalization has prompted concerns about civil rights and the potential misuse of governmental power.

Deportation rhetoric against naturalized citizens

During a recent press conference, Trump hinted at the possibility of deporting Elon Musk, a naturalized U.S. citizen since 2002, following the tech billionaire’s criticism of Trump’s policies. Similarly, Zohran Mamdani, a Ugandan-born New York City mayoral candidate who became a citizen in 2018, was accused by Trump of being in the U.S. illegally. Trump further threatened to arrest Mamdani if he interfered with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.

Mamdani responded sharply, stating, “The President of the United States just threatened to have me arrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp, and deported. Not because I have broken any law, but because I will refuse to let ICE terrorize our city.”

Legal experts have been quick to point out that deporting U.S. citizens violates constitutional protections. However, the Trump Administration’s focus on denaturalization—a process used to revoke citizenship from naturalized Americans—has raised fresh concerns about erosion of rights.

The history and legal limits of denaturalization

Denaturalization in the U.S. has a controversial history, often tied to political and racial discrimination. Patrick Weil, a historian and author of The Sovereign Citizen, notes that denaturalization was originally a mechanism to address naturalization fraud but evolved into a tool for punishing behavior deemed “un-American.”

During World War II, denaturalization expanded under the 1940 Nationality Act, targeting not only naturalized citizens but also some native-born Americans. However, the Supreme Court curtailed the practice in a landmark 1967 decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, which reinforced the constitutional protections of citizenship, making it almost inviolable.

Currently, denaturalization is limited to cases involving significant fraud in the naturalization process or gross human rights violations, such as undisclosed ties to Nazi war crimes. Legal experts stress that neither Musk nor Mamdani meets these criteria, making Trump’s remarks legally unfounded.

Trump’s denaturalization agenda

Despite constitutional safeguards, Trump’s administration has aggressively pursued denaturalization. Initiatives like Operation Janus, launched under President Obama and expanded during Trump’s first term, have scrutinized naturalization records for fraud. In 2020, the Department of Justice created a Denaturalization Section explicitly focused on revoking citizenship from individuals linked to terrorism, war crimes, or criminal activity.

Critics argue that these efforts, while small in scale, set a dangerous precedent. Civil rights advocates, including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, have warned that civil denaturalization proceedings lower the burden of proof and deprive defendants of legal representation, raising Fourteenth Amendment concerns.

Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate defended denaturalization as a necessary tool to “protect national security” and remove individuals posing a threat to the U.S. However, advocacy groups fear these measures will deter lawful permanent residents from pursuing citizenship and disproportionately target marginalized communities.

Political implications and expert analysis

Trump’s remarks about Musk and Mamdani reflect a broader pattern of using denaturalization as a political weapon. Michael Kagan, a law professor at the University of Nevada, criticized Trump’s statements as “irresponsible rhetoric designed to intimidate political opponents.”

Mamdani has faced baseless accusations of terrorist sympathies, with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani suggesting that his citizenship be revoked. Giuliani admitted, however, that legal grounds for such actions are tenuous.

While the Supreme Court has previously upheld citizenship protections, legal analysts note its deference to Trump in recent rulings. This raises concerns about potential challenges to foundational decisions like Afroyim v. Rusk.

Even if denaturalization were pursued in Mamdani’s case, it would not guarantee deportation. Denaturalized individuals revert to their previous immigration status, which in Mamdani’s case would be lawful permanent residency.

Trump’s renewed push for denaturalization has reignited fears about the fragility of citizenship rights in the U.S. While current legal frameworks offer significant protections, the administration’s aggressive stance on denaturalization highlights the ongoing tension between constitutional guarantees and executive power. For naturalized citizens, the debate underscores the need for vigilance to protect their hard-won rights from political overreach.