Bill Would Strip Citizenship from Naturalized Citizens Who Back Terrorism

Federal officials and Republican lawmakers have accelerated a push to make it easier to strip citizenship from naturalized Americans tied to terrorism or serious criminal conduct, advancing two bills in early 2026 while the Justice Department presses lawyers to pursue more denaturalization cases.

The debate now centers on the Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation Act, or SCAM Act, and the Naturalization Accountability Act, alongside a June 11, 2025 DOJ memo that told the Civil Division to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence,” with “those with a nexus to terrorism” listed as a top priority.

For naturalized citizens, the push matters because denaturalization has historically been rare and usually tied to fraud or illegal procurement during the naturalization process. The new proposals would broaden that debate by focusing on conduct that occurs after a person has already become a U.S. citizen.

As of March 26, 2026, neither bill had automatically changed the law. Both measures were introduced in Congress, where lawmakers must still move them through the legislative process before any president could sign them.

Supporters of the shift have framed it as a public-safety response. Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor, backed the SCAM Act on January 19, 2026, saying, “All Somali refugees, or any other immigrants, who have committed fraud against the United States must be immediately denaturalized and deported. We applaud Senator Schmitt for his leadership.”

FBI Director Kash Patel made a similar argument on March 13, 2026, after several violent incidents that month involving naturalized citizens. “Under current law, revoking citizenship is ‘extremely difficult unless fraud in the naturalization process can be proven.’ This gap leaves serious national security concerns the country must confront,” Patel said.

The SCAM Act and Its Scope

The SCAM Act, filed as H.R. 7156 / S. 3674, was introduced January 15–20, 2026, by Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota. It would expand civil denaturalization beyond classic fraud-at-naturalization theories and let the government target later conduct as evidence that citizenship should never have been granted.

Under the proposal, the government could seek civil denaturalization if a naturalized citizen affiliates after naturalization with a designated foreign terrorist organization, commits an aggravated felony, or engages in substantial welfare fraud of over $10,000 within 10 years of naturalization. That framework would reach well beyond the usual cases centered on lies or concealment during the citizenship application itself.

The bill’s legal theory is direct. It treats later conduct as prima facie evidence that the person lacked “good moral character” or an “attachment to the Constitution” when taking the oath of allegiance.

That matters because it would make it easier to revisit grants of citizenship based on conduct discovered later. Instead of focusing narrowly on what an applicant disclosed or hid during the naturalization process, the bill would let officials use subsequent acts to argue the oath should not have been accepted in the first place.

Schmitt’s office outlined the measure in a Senate press release. The release offers political context, but the bill text would govern if Congress enacted the measure.

The Naturalization Accountability Act

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas took a different approach with the Naturalization Accountability Act, introduced March 17, 2026. Rather than creating a structured lookback period like the SCAM Act, Cotton’s bill would remove existing 5- to 10-year limitation periods that now constrain some denaturalization actions.

His proposal would allow the government to seek denaturalization at any time if a naturalized citizen is a member of a terrorist organization or is convicted of a felony. The timing is central: the bill says that power would apply regardless of whether the crime occurred before, during, or after naturalization.

That would make naturalized status reviewable long after citizenship was granted. In practice, it would move denaturalization even farther from its traditional role as an extraordinary remedy tied to fraud in the original application.

Cotton’s office described that proposal in a separate Senate press release. The contrast between the two bills is sharp: the SCAM Act sets defined triggers, including a 10-year period and a welfare-fraud threshold of over $10,000, while the Naturalization Accountability Act seeks an open-ended timeline for terrorism-related membership or felony convictions.

Violent Incidents and the Policy Shift

Lawmakers and administration allies have tied the new push to violent incidents in March 2026. They have pointed in particular to the Old Dominion University attack on March 12, 2026, in which Mohamed Jalloh, a naturalized citizen from Sierra Leone who was previously convicted of supporting ISIS, opened fire on an ROTC class and killed a service member.

They also cited a Michigan synagogue attack involving a Lebanese-born naturalized citizen who rammed a vehicle into a synagogue and opened fire. Supporters of the legislation have used those incidents to argue that current denaturalization law is too narrow.

That argument reflects a broader policy change in emphasis. For decades, denaturalization has been described as an extraordinary remedy, used almost exclusively in cases where a person obtained citizenship unlawfully, including by hiding disqualifying conduct during the naturalization process.

The new bills and the DOJ’s enforcement posture point toward a broader public-safety tool aimed at post-naturalization conduct. In that view, later acts tied to terrorism or serious crime are not simply new offenses; they are evidence that the person was never entitled to citizenship in the first place.

What Denaturalization Means in Practice

The practical stakes are high for anyone facing such a case. If the government strips a person of citizenship, that person loses the right to vote, the right to hold a U.S. passport, and access to federal benefits tied to citizenship.

A denaturalized person may also revert to the immigration status held before becoming a citizen, such as lawful permanent resident. That change does not automatically mean deportation in every case, but it can expose the person to removal proceedings if separate grounds for removability exist.

In terrorism and aggravated felony cases, that exposure can be immediate. Once citizenship is gone, the government can move to deport if immigration law provides an independent basis to remove the person.

The retroactivity language in the SCAM Act adds another layer. The bill states that revocation would apply retroactively, treating the citizenship as though it had “never granted from the beginning.”

That formulation goes to the heart of the current dispute. If Congress embraces that theory, the legal effect would reach beyond losing a passport or voter registration and recast the person’s status as if naturalization had never happened.

Dates, Thresholds, and Legislative Meaning

The dates and thresholds in these proposals are also more than legislative details. They define exposure. The SCAM Act’s 10 years of naturalization language shows how Congress can create a set period during which later conduct may trigger a denaturalization suit, while its welfare-fraud threshold of over $10,000 shows how lawmakers can set a numerical trigger for civil action.

The introduction dates matter for another reason. January 15–20, 2026 and March 17, 2026 mark legislative momentum, not legal effectiveness.

A bill’s filing can draw public attention, shape political rhetoric, and influence how agencies talk about enforcement, even before the measure becomes law. But introduced legislation does not itself alter citizenship rules until Congress passes it and a president signs it.

The Naturalization Accountability Act goes farther on timing. By removing 5- to 10-year limitation periods, it would let the government bring denaturalization actions without the current time constraints in the cases it covers.

That open-ended structure would keep naturalized status vulnerable for far longer than the SCAM Act’s defined window. For lawyers, advocates and affected families, that difference is one of the clearest markers separating the two bills.

DOJ Enforcement Posture and Official Sources

The DOJ memo already shows how enforcement rhetoric can move even without new legislation. Brett Shumate, the Assistant Attorney General who issued the June 11, 2025 memorandum, instructed department lawyers to push denaturalization cases as aggressively as existing law allows, especially where terrorism is involved.

Current agency and litigation materials offer the clearest way to track that posture. Readers looking to verify denaturalization examples can review the USCIS newsroom, where the agency posts case announcements and policy materials, and the USCIS legal resources page, which includes policy memoranda such as DHS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192 on terrorism screening.

Congressional sources also help distinguish advocacy from enacted law. Senate sponsor releases can show how lawmakers frame a bill politically, but the legal text and legislative status remain the controlling documents for anyone trying to determine what the proposals would actually do.

That distinction matters as the denaturalization debate widens. Political statements can describe citizenship as conditional, but courts, statutes and filed cases determine how far the government may go against naturalized citizens in practice.

What Comes Next

What comes next will determine whether this remains a rhetorical and enforcement push or becomes a lasting change in the law. Committee action, floor votes, amendments and any House-Senate movement will show whether lawmakers can turn the 2026 proposals into enacted legislation.

Just as important will be whether DOJ files new denaturalization cases that mirror the broader theories behind the bills. Court challenges would then test how far any new law could reach, especially where retroactivity is involved. For naturalized citizens watching the debate, the safest guide remains official updates and primary legal documents, not the assumption that every proposal becomes policy.