The Rising Threat of Denaturalization: What Every Naturalized Citizen Should Know

In a sweeping escalation of immigration enforcement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced denaturalization as a top civil enforcement priority for Fiscal Year 2026. This move, outlined in a June 2025 memorandum, marks a dramatic shift in federal policy—transforming a once-rare legal action into a political and legal weapon with potentially devastating consequences for naturalized U.S. citizens.

Historically, denaturalization was a legal tool reserved for the most egregious cases—such as war crimes, espionage, or fraudulent naturalization obtained through criminal acts. Between 1990 and 2017, only 305 denaturalization cases were filed nationwide—an average of fewer than 12 per year. But under the Trump administration, these referrals increased by over 600%, and the momentum has surged again following the administration’s return to power.

Who Is Being Targeted?

The new DOJ memo outlines a troublingly broad set of priorities, including denaturalizing:

• Individuals deemed “sufficiently important to pursue”;
• Those labeled as potential national security threats;
• Individuals alleged to have aided criminal gangs or committed financial fraud;
• Those connected with “pending criminal charges”;
• Citizens believed to have obtained naturalization through government corruption.

These vague categories depart significantly from the limited, well-defined grounds for denaturalization under existing law. The memo lacks any statutory framework for many of the stated priorities—suggesting either a willful misapplication of federal law or a coordinated effort to expand the scope of who can be denaturalized without congressional approval.

The Legal Framework and Constitutional Protections

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. citizenship cannot be stripped without due process. The standard of proof in denaturalization proceedings is deliberately high: the government must show “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” in civil cases, or “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal proceedings.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) only permits denaturalization in limited cases, such as:

• Willful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact during the naturalization process;
• Involvement in subversive groups within five years of naturalization;
• Criminal conviction for naturalization fraud;
• Dishonorable discharge from the military if citizenship was acquired through service;
• Refusal to testify before Congress about alleged subversive activities.

These statutory standards do not include any of the vague, subjective priorities outlined in the DOJ memo. If pursued, many of these cases may ultimately be dismissed in court—but only after significant financial and emotional strain for the accused.

Civil Liberties at Risk

Perhaps most concerning is the process itself. Denaturalization cases are usually civil—not criminal—meaning there is no guaranteed right to an attorney, no right to a public hearing, and no requirement to notify the individual before a case is filed. In some cases, naturalized citizens may lose their citizenship without ever being given a chance to defend themselves.

If denaturalized, a person may become stateless—without the legal protections of any country. Stateless individuals may lose access to employment, travel, voting rights, government benefits, and basic identification documents. This legal limbo creates enormous barriers to everyday life and strips individuals of the very rights they were once granted by the United States.

The American Constitution Society has already raised red flags, citing government litigation strategies that “carry a disturbingly high risk of mistakenly taking away citizenship from someone who committed neither crime nor fraud.”

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that citizenship should not be subject to political whims. In Schneiderman v. United States (1943), the Court warned that tying the security of naturalized citizens to the “political temper of majority thought” undermines the very principles of democracy.

Ultimately, the legality and scope of this denaturalization campaign will likely be tested in the courts—and may well reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the Court’s current conservative majority and its track record of deferring to executive authority on immigration matters, the outcome is far from certain. Whether the Court upholds or reins in these sweeping enforcement powers remains to be seen. In the meantime, naturalized citizens, immigration advocates, and legal professionals alike will be watching closely as this unprecedented policy unfolds in the months ahead.