Senator Schmitt Pushes Denaturalization Expansion After Violence by Naturalized Citizens

(MINNESOTA) — Sen. Eric Schmitt reintroduced the Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation (SCAM) Act and defended a broader use of denaturalization after recent acts of violence by naturalized U.S. citizens.

The Republican senator from Missouri framed the bill as a public safety measure and a response to what he described as fraud inside the immigration system, arguing that citizenship should be revoked when later conduct shows a person never qualified to naturalize.

Schmitt tied his push to a Minnesota case he described as a “rampant fraud” scandal involving Somali crime rings, where naturalized citizens faced convictions. “They must be denaturalized because they have proven they never met the requirements for the great honor of American citizenship in the first place,” Schmitt said.

The SCAM Act, introduced January 19, 2026, seeks to broaden civil denaturalization grounds under INA § 1451 by making it easier for the Justice Department to argue that a naturalized citizen was “originally ineligible” for citizenship at the time it was granted.

That theory links later-discovered conduct to the naturalization standards that apply at the moment a person becomes a citizen. Supporters argue that if prosecutors can show the person’s actions demonstrate they lacked required traits at naturalization, the government should be able to undo the grant of citizenship through a civil case.

Under the bill, the expanded triggers include defrauding governmental programs, joining foreign terrorist organizations, or committing certain serious criminal offenses. The legislation leans on naturalization concepts including “good moral character,” “attachment to the U.S. Constitution,” and “disposition to the good order of the United States” at the time of naturalization.

Schmitt previewed the legislation in a recent interview while defending ICE deportations and calling for a tougher approach to people accused of immigration-related fraud. He emphasized prosecution of fraudsters, financial controls, and denaturalization with a “look back” for felonies or fraud, followed by deportation.

The bill’s backers have pointed to high-profile incidents involving naturalized citizens as part of a broader enforcement argument, and they have cast denaturalization as a deterrent meant to protect the “integrity of citizenship.” Schmitt’s Minnesota references fit within that messaging, using a fraud narrative to argue that later criminal conduct should help prove a person never met the naturalization bar.

Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor, endorsed the bill and called for immediate denaturalization and deportation of fraud-committing Somali refugees or other immigrants.

Supporters outside government also urged Congress to move quickly. Cooper Smith, Director of Homeland Security and Immigration at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), said the bill restores integrity by ensuring “fraud, deception, or violence have no place in the naturalization process.”

Joe Chatham, Director of Government Relations at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), urged swift passage and argued it would safeguard against criminal exploitation and national security threats.

While Schmitt’s legislation would require Congress to act, the bill arrives as immigration agencies and the Justice Department signal a greater willingness to pursue denaturalization in certain categories of cases.

Updated USCIS guidance set expectations for denaturalization case referrals in fiscal 2026 that would exceed levels seen in earlier periods, including years when denaturalization cases were described as uncommon. The guidance focuses on categories including violent criminals, gun offenders, human traffickers, fraudsters, and war crimes perpetrators.

The administration has pointed to recent denaturalization cases to illustrate the kinds of conduct it says justify civil action to revoke citizenship. One case involved a New York taxi driver, Gurmeet Singh, denaturalized for concealing a rape conviction that carried a 20-year sentence.

Federal officials also cited the denaturalization of a Texas child sex offender, Carlos Noe Gallegos.

Another example involved a Florida man identified as Mr. Fernandez Gaviola, denaturalized for hiding a military role in political slayings.

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate, in a statement cited alongside those cases, said: “No one who commits atrocities like these is entitled to the precious gift of U.S. citizenship.”

The SCAM Act’s approach builds on the government’s existing authority to bring civil denaturalization cases, and it aims to widen the range of post-naturalization conduct that prosecutors can use to argue a person should never have become a citizen.

In practice, the bill would place more weight on the government’s ability to connect later acts—such as program fraud, involvement with a foreign terrorist organization, or specified serious offenses—to the legal requirements a person had to meet at naturalization.

The proposed expansion would likely raise the stakes in disputes over what later-discovered conduct proves about a person’s prior eligibility. The concept at the center of Schmitt’s bill is that later wrongdoing can serve as evidence that a person lacked “good moral character,” “attachment to the U.S. Constitution,” or “disposition to the good order of the United States” when citizenship was granted.

That framing matters because civil denaturalization cases often turn on allegations that the person committed fraud or concealed material facts during the naturalization process. Schmitt’s proposal would add more explicit paths for the government to argue that the person’s actions show disqualifying conduct that existed or mattered at the time of naturalization.

Current law already permits denaturalization, but it remains rare and is typically tied to fraud or concealment at naturalization, referenced in the 8 CFR § 340 context.

Civil denaturalization does not always require a criminal conviction, depending on the allegations and how the government structures its case. Prosecutors can bring proceedings seeking to revoke citizenship when they argue the original grant was improperly obtained.

The consequences can be severe. Denaturalization can strip a person of U.S. citizenship status and can make the person potentially removable, with eligibility for relief constrained in some cases by INA § 237-related bars depending on the facts.

The legal backdrop also includes administrative and case law describing how fraud and concealment questions get assessed. It referenced binding precedents and cited Matter of Bido, 28 I&N Dec. 417 (BIA 2022), described as persuasive on fraud concealment, while noting no circuit splits on core denaturalization authority.

Schmitt’s push comes as denaturalization occupies a growing place in political messaging about immigration enforcement, with supporters presenting it as both a fraud deterrent and a public safety tool.

The Minnesota fraud narrative has been central to that argument for Schmitt, who has linked the SCAM Act to Somali crime rings and convictions involving naturalized citizens. His quote about the “great honor of American citizenship” reflects a broader effort to cast denaturalization as a way to protect the status of citizenship itself.

At the same time, research on immigrants and crime is often cited to challenge political narratives that link immigration to rising violence. Studies cited say immigrants, including naturalized citizens, have lower crime rates than U.S.-born citizens.

In Texas, the cited research found immigrants had less than half the rate for violent and drug crimes and one-quarter the rate for property crimes, compared with U.S.-born citizens.

The cited research also linked immigration increases to declining violent crime.

Those findings have become a recurring point in immigration debates, with competing sides using different kinds of evidence to argue for tougher enforcement or caution against broad-brush suspicion of immigrants, including those who are already citizens.

Schmitt’s legislation, however, focuses narrowly on denaturalization and the standards for proving original eligibility, rather than on overall immigration levels. Its supporters argue the government should act quickly when it identifies fraud or later conduct they say shows a person never met the naturalization requirements.

The SCAM Act was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which typically serves as the first stop for major immigration and enforcement proposals before any vote by the full Senate.

The bill’s text authorizes the Justice Department to pursue proceedings where offenses are used to argue original ineligibility for naturalization, relying on the same basic mechanism that underpins civil denaturalization under INA § 1451.

Even without congressional action, the government’s recent posture signals increased attention to denaturalization referrals and enforcement categories tied to violent crime, fraud, and national security concerns. If lawmakers advance Schmitt’s proposal, it would put denaturalization—built around DOJ proceedings arguing a person should not have been naturalized—more squarely at the center of the immigration enforcement debate.