Trump Threatens Denaturalization If They Deserve It, Experts Warn

(MINNESOTA, USA) — President Trump said he would “absolutely” strip citizenship from some naturalized americans if they “deserve” it, reviving fears that denaturalization could be used broadly or politically as his administration ramps up immigration enforcement.

President Trump told the New York Times,

“I would do it in a heartbeat if they were dishonest.”

Pressed on which foreign-born groups he would target, he added, “If they deserve to be stripped, I would, yes,” without defining what “deserve” means or tying it clearly to existing law.

TIME reported that, after returning to office, President Trump has “ramped up” an immigration crackdown and is questioning the citizenship status of foreign-born U.S. citizens, prompting warnings from legal and civil-rights experts about court fights and constitutional limits.

President Trump has paid particular attention to Minnesota and the state’s Somali community, linking his denaturalization rhetoric to investigations into fraudulent schemes targeting government-funded programs. He has blamed the wider Somali community rather than only those charged or convicted, accusing them of “destroying” Minnesota.

In the New York Times interview, President Trump said of Somali immigrants in Minnesota,

“I think that many of the people that came in from Somalia, they hate our country.”

He has also personally singled out Rep. Ilhan Omar, born in somalia and naturalized at 17, saying at a Pennsylvania rally, “We ought to get her the hell out,” as supporters chanted “send her back.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Fox & Friends in December that the administration was “looking at” revoking the citizenship of people of Somali descent if they are convicted in the fraud cases and that they are “not afraid to use denaturalization.”

dhs assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Fox News Digital, “Under U.S. law, if an individual procures citizenship on a fraudulent basis, that is grounds for denaturalization.” DHS has announced an audit of immigration and citizenship files of individuals from Minnesota’s Somali community in connection with the scandal, raising the prospect of large-scale case reviews.

At the same time, an immigration law analysis summarizing NPR and Reuters reporting described internal discussions of a President Trump administration plan to denaturalize 100 to 200 people per month in 2026, coordinated between USCIS and DOJ. That analysis quoted an NPR source saying “establishing a quota is new,” contrasting it with the historical average of about a dozen denaturalization cases a year.

TIME cited a sharp rise in denaturalization during President Trump’s first term, saying the period saw an average of 42 cases annually. From 1990–2017, TIME reported, there were 305 denaturalization cases total (≈11 per year).

Under current federal law, denaturalization is permitted if naturalization was “illegally procured,” or citizenship was obtained through “willful, material misrepresentation” or fraud in the process. USCIS and DOJ policy also recognize denaturalization where a person becomes a member of a Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of naturalization, or where specific statutory grounds apply.

Once denaturalized, citizenship is treated as if it “never existed,” and the person reverts to their prior status, often a green card holder. That shift can open the door to removal proceedings, since lawful permanent residents can be deported under U.S. law.

Eryan Hanlon, an immigration lawyer and partner at Greenwood Hanlon Kendrick, told TIME that the burden remains on the government even as the rhetoric escalates.

“The Trump Administration would have to prove that they [the citizens] were either committing fraud or lying during their naturalization process—perhaps through a fake marriage, or hiding a felony or a serious crime, or using a false name,” Hanlon said.

Hanlon warned that a broad push can turn small discrepancies into high-stakes allegations. “If someone accidentally put the wrong birth date on an application and the government wants to denaturalize them, could that be twisted to be considered fraudulent when really it was a typo?” he said.

Smita Dazzo, deputy legal lead at HIAS, said any large-scale effort would likely be met with swift legal resistance.

“I think it would be very unlikely that if this program were to go through, especially at the scale this Administration wants it to, that it would not be challenged legally,” Dazzo said.

Dazzo also warned that reviews of old files could treat minor mistakes as major offenses. “They may find any kind of mistake that could have been made, no matter how insignificant, and then claim that it’s a material misrepresentation worthy of denaturalization,” she said.

The stakes of a successful case are severe, Dazzo said, because denaturalization changes a person’s legal status and exposure to deportation. “U.S. citizens cannot be deported, even if they originally immigrated here from somewhere else. But when someone is denaturalized, they revert back to their status as a green card holder. And as a green card holder, you can be deported,” she said.

President Trump’s public comments have extended beyond fraud-based denaturalization, analysts and advocates said, raising alarms about whether denaturalization could be framed as punishment for speech or political activity. The Brennan Center noted that President Trump recently said on a Sunday that he would “absolutely” denaturalize citizens if he could, and has vowed to “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility” in a Thanksgiving Truth Social post.

Legal scholars at the Brennan Center argued that Supreme Court precedent limits any attempt to use citizenship stripping as a political weapon. They cited decades of holdings that naturalized citizens are “on the same footing” as native-born citizens, and that stripping citizenship because of a person’s views or political expression “would run counter to our traditions.”

In Afroyim v. Rusk and later cases discussed by the Brennan Center, the Supreme Court rejected denaturalization as a political weapon, the group said. That body of law makes it unconstitutional to revoke citizenship for disloyalty, speech, or voting choices rather than for fraud in obtaining it.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association and other experts have also warned that using denaturalization for minor errors or political retaliation would face “significant” litigation and likely be struck down. Even in civil denaturalization cases, courts require “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence, a high bar that can constrain expansive enforcement theories.

President Trump has also raised questions about the citizenship of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, born in Uganda and naturalized in 2018, and twice threatened to strip citizenship from New York-born comedian Rosie O’Donnell, even though she is a birthright citizen, TIME and other reporting noted.

Civil-rights and immigration scholars writing for ACS warned that expanding denaturalization carries a “disturbingly high risk of mistakenly taking away citizenship from someone who committed neither crime nor fraud.” Analysts have also cautioned that numerical targets can push volume over careful review, with cases driven by paperwork checks and older records.

The Justice Department’s denaturalization section, created in 2020 during President Trump’s first term, emphasized civil denaturalization, which uses a lower procedural bar than criminal cases. DOJ press materials for that section said it would “prioritize people who have committed serious violations of law,” such as sex offenses, war crimes, or terrorism, but internal DOJ attorneys anonymously voiced “worries that denaturalizations could be broadly used to strip citizenship” for minor errors.

Historically, the federal government pursued around a dozen denaturalization cases per year, often tied to egregious conduct like Nazi war crimes or terrorism, analysts said. During President Trump’s first term, DOJ filed 25 denaturalization cases in 2017 and another 20 in just the first half of 2018, according to the ACS analysis.

AILA’s denaturalization “featured issue” described President Trump’s approach as turning a “rarely used legal process” into a top enforcement priority, with naturalized citizens facing new threats “often for minor infractions or political expression.” That warning has taken on new urgency as President Trump and his aides point to investigations in Minnesota while describing denaturalization as an option for people they say should not hold U.S. citizenship.

Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts condemned the reported quota plan in comments cited by TIME.

“The Trump Administration’s latest anti-immigrant attack is xenophobia disguised as policy. It is disgusting and cruel to revoke the citizenship of Americans who have called this country home for years. All American citizens—regardless of where they were born—deserve all of our nation’s constitutional protections,” Markey said.

For now, experts across the political and legal spectrum say any attempt to use denaturalization as a broad or political tool would collide with the limits set by Congress and the courts, even as President Trump continues to argue that some naturalized citizens should lose their status if they “deserve” it.