(NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, USA) Republican Rep. Andy Ogles is urging federal officials to open an investigation into the U.S. citizenship of Zohran Mamdani, arguing the New York City Democratic mayoral primary winner may have obtained naturalization through willful misrepresentation and should face possible denaturalization and deportation if wrongdoing is proven.
The push gathered steam after Mamdani’s primary victory, with President Trump and conservative groups amplifying the call and questioning the legitimacy of Mamdani’s status. Ogles said in a letter to the Attorney General that Mamdani’s path to citizenship, finalized in 2018, warrants scrutiny, asserting that misrepresentation at the time of naturalization would meet the narrow grounds for revoking citizenship under federal law.
He also accused Mamdani of supporting terrorism, citing past political statements and rap lyrics. As of October 23, 2025, however, no formal charges or evidence have been presented to support those claims, and there is no official federal investigation underway into Mamdani’s citizenship.
Mamdani has forcefully denied the allegations, framing them as a political attack designed to silence dissent and undermine a democratic result. His supporters, including several Democratic lawmakers, call the campaign racist and authoritarian, noting that public claims without proof risk chilling the political speech of naturalized citizens, immigrants, and candidates with left-wing views.
President Trump publicly suggested Mamdani’s citizenship “should be scrutinized,” adding, “A lot of people are saying he’s here illegally,” and threatened to have Mamdani arrested if he interfered with federal immigration enforcement. The remarks spurred a wave of online posts calling for immediate removal of citizenship, even though the legal standard for denaturalization is extremely high and rarely met.
Legal context and rarity of denaturalization
Under U.S. law, denaturalization is possible only in limited situations, such as:
- when citizenship was obtained through fraud or concealment of material facts, or
- where a person supported the violent overthrow of the government within five years of naturalization.
Officials and courts treat denaturalization as an extraordinary remedy rather than a routine tool. According to the USCIS Policy Manual, federal authorities pursue these cases in narrow circumstances and must meet strict legal tests before a court can revoke citizenship.
Key legal points:
- Mamdani became a U.S. citizen in 2018, which matters because some grounds (for example, support for violent overthrow) are time-bound.
- The government bears the burden to prove any basis for stripping citizenship; at this stage no evidence has been filed in court to support denaturalization or deportation.
- Mere calls to investigate do not start a legal denaturalization process.
Legal analysts emphasize that the bar for proving fraud is especially high. It typically requires:
- clear proof that the person lied about a material fact during naturalization, and
- proof that the lie directly affected the grant of citizenship.
Political speech, even controversial speech, is generally protected in the United States 🇺🇸. That distinction matters because many claims focus on what Mamdani has said rather than on what he allegedly hid during the naturalization process.
VisaVerge.com reports that the case highlights a growing national debate: when political leaders highlight denaturalization as a response to disliked speech, they risk blurring the line between misconduct at the time of naturalization and later political expression that is not itself a ground to strip citizenship.
Denaturalization is an extraordinary legal remedy, not a substitute for political disagreement. It requires strict proof of fraud or other narrowly defined misconduct at the time of naturalization.
Political reactions and community impact
The clash over Zohran Mamdani’s legitimacy as a naturalized citizen comes at a tense moment in immigration politics. Reactions fall into several clear camps:
- Supporters of the investigation:
- Argue that if someone lied to become a citizen, denaturalization protects the integrity of the process.
- Insist the government must check candidate files for possible fraud.
- Critics of the campaign:
- Say launching probes based on political views invites selective enforcement and chills civic participation.
- Call the attack racist and authoritarian, especially when made without evidence.
Community and civic concerns:
- For many naturalized citizens, the episode feels personal and threatening. Those who swore the oath worry that shifting political winds could target them for old comments or unpopular beliefs.
- Immigrant families and advocacy groups worry that high-profile demands for denaturalization will create a climate of suspicion around millions who followed the rules, passed background checks, and earned citizenship.
- Mamdani’s team says the allegations are a distraction from local policy debates following his primary win and that immigration status, once settled by law, should not be wielded as a partisan weapon.
- Democratic lawmakers say there’s no credible evidence justifying an investigation, much less the extreme step of stripping citizenship.
Ogles and other Republicans maintain they are not backing down, arguing that ignoring potential fraud would undermine public trust. Their calls for action have found an energized online audience, where short clips, past lyrics, and statements are recirculated as supposed proof—though none has been validated in a legal filing.
The Justice Department has not announced any probe. Without a federal case, the issue remains a political fight rather than a legal one. That distinction is critical: denaturalization can only proceed through established legal channels with evidence that meets the standard set by law. Political pressure alone does not change that.
Stakes and possible outcomes
- If a real investigation begins, it would test whether the accusations amount to more than rhetoric and whether evidence meets the high legal standard required for denaturalization.
- If no evidence emerges, critics will likely treat the episode as an example of using immigration status as a political cudgel.
Community groups emphasize the broader lesson: the line between robust political debate and efforts that chill speech must hold. Naturalized citizens should not face a different set of rules for seeking office or speaking out.
For voters who want checks on candidates, some say it is reasonable to examine a candidate’s past for red flags — including elements of their path to citizenship — so long as investigations are fact-based and not partisan witch hunts.
Current status (unchanged)
- No official federal investigation is active.
- No formal charges have been filed.
The rhetoric is loud, but the legal record is silent. Until that changes, the case of Zohran Mamdani sits at the center of a national argument about speech, citizenship, and the limits of denaturalization in a democracy.
This Article in a Nutshell
Rep. Andy Ogles and conservative figures have called for an investigation into Zohran Mamdani’s 2018 naturalization, alleging possible willful misrepresentation and urging denaturalization. President Trump and other conservatives amplified the claims, citing past statements and lyrics. Legal experts and immigration guidance stress that denaturalization is an extraordinary, rarely used remedy that requires strict proof of fraud or narrowly defined misconduct, often subject to time limits. As of October 23, 2025, there are no formal charges or federal investigations. Critics call the campaign racist and politically motivated, warning it risks chilling political speech and undermining due process for naturalized citizens.
