What to know about the DOJ revoking citizenship of naturalized Americans
Why it matters: It ramps up the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, which it has expanded to target, deport and detain legal permanent residents and citizens.
Driving the news: The DOJ directed attorneys to prioritize denaturalization in cases where naturalized citizens commit crimes, per the memo.
The DOJ calls for "civil denaturalization" in the case of "war crimes," "extrajudicial killings," "human rights abuses," and for those "convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the United States," as well as "terrorists."
"The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence," the memo said.
Representatives for the White House, DOJ and Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment on Monday evening.
What is a naturalized citizen?
Naturalization "is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a lawful permanent resident after meeting the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)," per U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
How many immigrants are naturalized citizens?
Of the 46.2 million immigrants living in the U.S. in 2022, 24.5 million – 53% – were naturalized citizens, according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of government data.
What people are eligible to become naturalized citizens?
By the numbers: In the past decade, the U.S. naturalized more than 7.9 million citizens, per the USCIS.
Naturalized citizens must undergo an involved application process, but eligibility criteria generally includes being a lawful permanent resident for at least five years, with exceptions for spouses of citizens and members of the U.S. military.
The median years spent as a permanent resident for all citizens naturalized in 2024 was 7.5 years.
The INA requires that naturalization applicants can read, write and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language and have a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government.
How many citizens have been denaturalized?
From 1990-2017, the DOJ filed 305 denaturalization cases, about 11 per year.
The number has surged since President Trump's first term.
What they're saying: "Denaturalization is no longer so rare," noted Cassandra Burke Robertson, a professor at Case Western Reserve University's law school, in 2019, saying that the rise began under the Obama administration, "which used improved digital tools to identify potential cases of naturalization fraud from years before."
"But the Trump administration, with its overall immigration crackdown, is taking denaturalization to new levels."
Robertson also noted that denaturalization was a common political tool of the McCarthy era.
Since January 2017, the USCIS has selected some 2,500 cases for possible denaturalization and referred at least 110 denaturalization cases to the Justice Department for prosecution by the end of August 2018.
The DOJ filed at least 30 denaturalization cases in 2017 — twice the number it filed in 2016, per The Miami Herald.
How does the DOJ guidance change things for naturalized citizenship?
In the memo, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate wrote that pursuing denaturalization will be among the agency's top five enforcement priorities for the civil division.
"The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence," he said.
Are the DOJ's denaturalization efforts constitutional?
Robertson told NPR that the DOJ's pursuit of denaturalization cases is particularly concerning.
"Robertson says that stripping Americans of citizenship through civil litigation violates due process and infringes on the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment," NPR notes.
The denaturalization push gives the Trump administration another tool to police immigrants' free speech rights.
The Trump administration has targeted students, universities and immigrants for alleged antisemitism. Frequently, those targeted have been critical of Israel's war in Gaza.
The DOJ's memo cites "ending antisemitism" as one premise to prioritize denaturalization.
The Trump administration already detained for months — and sought to deport — pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, who is a green card holder.
The government argued in a memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that allowing Khalil to remain in the country would "undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States."
That echoes the language of the new memo, pushing for the denaturalization of those "convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the United States."
Has the Justice Department denaturalized anyone yet?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
9 minutes ago
- New York Times
With One War Over, Netanyahu Heads to Washington Amid Calls to End Another
For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, the meeting with President Trump scheduled for Monday will serve as a kind of victory lap after the joint Israeli-U.S. assault last month on Iran's nuclear facilities. The White House visit — the prime minister's third since Mr. Trump returned to office — is likely to add luster to Mr. Netanyahu's laurels, especially with his voters back home, analysts said, as he soon heads into an election year. But such trips have yielded surprises in the past. The last time Mr. Netanyahu was in the Oval Office, in April, he sat somewhat awkwardly at Mr. Trump's side as the president announced that Washington would be engaging in 'direct' talks with Iran in a last-ditch effort to rein in the country's nuclear program. That month, Mr. Netanyahu tried to convince Mr. Trump that the time was right for a military assault on Iran, but he was swatted down. This time, Mr. Trump is eager to advance a cease-fire deal for Gaza that would see Hamas release hostages and would ultimately end the long war in the Palestinian enclave that was set off by the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. On Sunday, Israel was sending negotiators to Qatar, a mediating country, to try to bridge differences with Hamas. The United States said it was also brokering talks between Israel and Syria aimed at restoring calm along their frontier. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Trump says he will start talks with China on TikTok deal
President Donald Trump late Friday said that the United States 'pretty much has a deal' for an American company to acquire the U.S. branch of TikTok, adding that he intended to restart talks next week with China to approve the deal. 'We're going to start Monday or Tuesday talking to China,' Trump told reporters traveling on Air Force One on Friday night as it headed to Bedminster, New Jersey. 'We think we probably have to get it approved by China. Not definitely, but probably.' He added, 'I think the deal is good for China, and it's good for us. It's money, it's a lot of money.' Trump did not say who the potential buyer was. The president said earlier in the week that he had found a buyer for the U.S. branch of TikTok, the popular Chinese-owned video app that faces a ban adopted by Congress over national security concerns. A 2024 law required that the app effectively be banned in the United States unless its parent company, ByteDance, sold it to a non-Chinese company. Congress was concerned that sensitive user data could end up in the hands of the Chinese government. It was not clear if the deal would comply with some of the requirements Congress adopted for a sale of TikTok, particularly if ByteDance chose not to share the app's algorithm with the U.S. buyers. Private equity firms have been hesitant to invest in a deal without some form of indemnification. Trump has declined to enforce the law banning the app, which was passed by large bipartisan majorities and unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court. Shortly after being sworn in, Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to suspend enforcement of the TikTok ban and has since repeatedly extended it. Attorney General Pam Bondi has told tech companies that Trump has the constitutional power to effectively set aside laws. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
But now they can't. Based on the Supreme Court's reading of a 1789 law, lower courts can now only take such action on specific cases before them, meaning that even clear-cut violations of the law could continue against those without the wherewithal to go to court. Advertisement Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel. And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms. Advertisement The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants. 'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority. Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves. '[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.' This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive. The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned. But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda. Advertisement And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection. Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them. The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present. And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them. Advertisement We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
