Justice Department to prioritize revoking citizenship of naturalized Americans: what to know

The U.S. Department of Justice has formally escalated its efforts to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans, issuing a directive that prioritizes “civil denaturalization” proceedings for those accused of certain crimes. This significant policy shift marks a considerable intensification of the Trump administration’s broader immigration crackdown, which has steadily expanded its reach to target, deport, and detain not only legal permanent residents but now also naturalized citizens. The internal memo signals a new frontier in immigration enforcement, raising critical questions about civil liberties and the permanence of U.S. Citizenship.

Historically, the act of denaturalization has been a rare occurrence within the American legal landscape. Between 1990 and 2017, the Justice Department pursued an average of merely 11 such cases annually. However, this trend has dramatically reversed since the beginning of the Trump administration. Experts note a surge in these proceedings, with thousands of cases identified for potential denaturalization by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and a notable increase in referrals to the Justice Department for prosecution. This aggressive pursuit represents a stark departure from previous practices, moving denaturalization from an infrequent legal recourse to a prioritized enforcement tool.

Under the new guidance, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate specified that the Civil Division of the Justice Department would “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.” The memo specifically targets naturalized citizens implicated in severe offenses such as war crimes, extrajudicial killings, human rights abuses, and terrorism. Additionally, it extends to individuals “convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the United States,” broadening the scope of eligibility for citizenship revocation.

Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates have voiced considerable alarm regarding the intensified push for denaturalization. Cassandra Burke Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, has publicly expressed concerns that stripping Americans of their citizenship through civil litigation may violate fundamental due process rights and infringe upon protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Critics argue that this policy risks undermining the stability of citizenship itself, transforming it into a potentially revocable status for millions of naturalized individuals.

A particularly contentious aspect of the Justice Department’s memo is its explicit mention of “ending antisemitism” as one premise for prioritizing denaturalization. This controversial inclusion has raised fears among civil liberties groups that the policy could be used to police free speech, particularly targeting individuals critical of certain foreign policies. This concern is underscored by previous actions from the Trump administration, which has sought to detain and deport individuals, including green card holders, based on their activism or perceived ideological stances.

The implications of this policy shift are far-reaching for the 24.5 million naturalized citizens currently residing in the United States, who constitute over half of the immigrant population. While naturalization is a rigorous process requiring applicants to meet stringent criteria, including demonstrating English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and government, this new directive introduces a profound layer of insecurity. It suggests that even after years of lawful residency and a successful naturalization process, their U.S. Citizenship could be retroactively challenged.

As the Justice Department moves forward with these enhanced denaturalization efforts—already evidenced by at least one recent successful revocation—the legal and societal ramifications will continue to unfold. The aggressive stance prompts critical examination of legal precedent, the limits of executive power, and the fundamental rights afforded to all U.S. citizens, regardless of how their citizenship was acquired. The policy challenges deeply held notions of belonging and the enduring promise of American citizenship.