by Edwin Quinabo
Is the McCarthy era of weaponizing denaturalization back? President Donald Trump has already threatened to deport his high-profile critics billionaire frenemy Elon Musk, NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and long-time comic Rosie O’Donnell.
If it weren’t for a recently unveiled controversial Department of Justice (DOJ) memo, the President’s remarks would have been flippant rhetoric. But a DOJ memo marks a radical expansion of the president’s immigration agenda, a new shift in his plans to “maximally pursue” denaturalization of American citizens.
The June 11 memo states, “The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence,” the memo said, adding that it should be among the division’s top five priorities.
About 25 million people are naturalized U.S. citizens. Denaturalization is not new but rarely used. From 1990 through 2017, there were only 305 cases of denaturalization, representing about 11 cases per year. During the first Trump administration, he opened a “Denaturalization Section” within the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation to investigate and prosecute naturalized citizens. His second administration is picking up where he left off but prioritizing it further, critics say.
The height of denaturalization came during the McCarthy era from 1947-1957 when those deemed un-American or communists were stripped of citizenship due to their political views. Two different tallies are widely cited: 1) over 20,000 were denaturalized during that era, and 2) over 22,000 were denaturalized annually during that era.
Landmark SCOTUS decision on denaturalization
The Supreme Court reeled back denaturalization in 1967, determining that, it was “inconsistent with the American form of democracy, because it creates two levels of citizenship.” The landmark Supreme Court ruling held that denaturalization is unconstitutional in most circumstances, unless an immigrant had “illegally procured” citizenship through fraud or other means.” Since then, the number of denaturalization cases plummeted to the single digits each year, and slightly higher in recent years.
Justice Hugo Black wrote in the court’s majority opinion, “Citizenship is no light trifle to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the names of one of its general or implied grants of power.”
Legal scholars believe the recent DOJ memo is cause for concern because of its vague language could be weaponized to include whoever the Trump administration want to cast as not belonging here. Traditionally, denaturalization had been used in extreme cases on alleged enemies of the state, spies, war criminals or later to include those who committed fraud while applying to become a U.S. citizen.
Who could be at risk for denaturalization?
The DOJ said that their denaturalization focus would be on criminals, but immigrant groups say that Trump also said he wanted to focus on mass deportation of undocumented with criminal records. But currently over 60% of those apprehended by ICE are undocumented migrants without criminal records.
Naureen Shah, director of government affairs for the ACLU’s Equality Division, said “anyone could be prioritized for denaturalization. It’s really chilling.”
Joyce Vance, a former United States Attorney, who is now a law professor, said of the DOJ’s vague priorities to denaturalize, “It could be exercising First Amendment rights or encouraging diversity in hiring, now recast as fraud against the United States. Troublesome journalists who are naturalized citizens? Students? University professors? Infectious disease doctors who try to reveal the truth about epidemics? Lawyers?” Vance wrote. “All are now vulnerable to the vagaries of an administration that has shown a preference for deporting people without due process and dealing with questions that come up after the fact and with a dismissive tone.”
Some immigration attorneys say there is hyperbole around the new DOJ memo and insist that only people who lied about their U.S. applications should be concerned over denaturalization. Lucas Guttentag, a professor at Stanford Law School, said most naturalized citizens shouldn’t be alarmed, because of legal precedent and the relatively high burden of proof required to denaturalize.
“There’s a big risk of abuse of the denaturalization power here, but the Supreme Court, the courts generally, have been very protective of naturalized citizens,” Guttentag said. He adds that even under the broadest interpretation of the law, the lengthy judicial process would present a major hurdle to widespread denaturalization.
However, Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and director of the university’s immigration, migration and human rights program, said “in theory, almost every naturalized citizen could be at risk. That’s because errors in the naturalization process could be construed broadly, and the labyrinthine road to naturalization is ripe for missteps. But it’s unclear if the government would actually bring a case based on minor omissions or mistakes.”
Filipino community opine on possible denaturalization escalating
Sergio J. Alcubilla III, Director of Community Engagement, ACLU of Hawai‘I, immigrated to the U.S. at 7 years old. His mother came to the U.S. in the 1970s to work as a nurse. “She gave birth to my youngest sibling in 1986 who was the first in our family to become a United States citizen. In 1988, my mother brought the rest of my siblings from the Philippines and in 1992, my mother became a naturalized U.S. citizen.”
Alcubilla said “We’ve recently seen how the Trump administration is using the idea of denaturalization to intimidate and silence those that hold opposing views, represent an opposing political party, or even criticize the administration. This is the danger and threat to our democracy, when President Trump can simply threaten to revoke citizenship based on viewpoints that he may not agree with.”
He mentions Trump’s threat to deport Mamdani and O’Donnell. “The strength of this country is that we can all come from multiple viewpoints and have the freedom to express it without fear that the government will silence us. Whatever the motivations may be of this administration, the effects are clear. It sows fear of retribution and encourages silence of dissent. To the ACLU of Hawaiʻi, dissent is patriotic and makes for a stronger union.”
Raymund Llanes Liongson, Ph.D., retired college educator, a naturalized U.S. citizen, raises multiple layers of problems that can arise from Trump’s new aim to aggressively denaturalize American citizens. “The Trump administration’s plan to revoke U.S. citizenship from naturalized American citizens is very concerning and disturbing. This raises several issues like the overreach of Executive Power, due process violation, erosion of democratic protection, separation of families, creation of fear and uncertainty among naturalized citizens. And with the vague standards and language, are citizens holding dual citizenship at risk as well?” he said.
On Trump’s possible motivation to push denaturalization with greater intensity than previous administrations, Liongson said “This is a racially motivated, a xenophobic act to rob non-white immigrants of their legally acquired status. It has nothing to do with the commission of crimes. It is all about denying immigrants their rightful place in this country.”
Gloria Salvador, Moanalua, was naturalized at the same time her parents became naturalized U.S. citizens. She was 12 years old at the time. “We have yet to see if denaturalization efforts will rise to the scope of mass denaturalization. Trump is mentioning it through his DOJ and public statements to test public opinion on the matter. He did that with mass deportation during his campaign and got positive feedback from his base because he stressed the criminal aspect. He is doing the same, highlighting the criminal aspect of denaturalization, those who committed fraud in their application process.”
Salvador adds, “however, we all need to be concerned because look what he did with mass deportation, Trump expanded it beyond criminals. With the DOJ’s vague provisions, Trump could very well weaponize it to include all kinds of reasons like those who oppose his policies, people who protest or speak up against his draconian immigration agenda. It’s scary what’s happening in the country. Immigrants, both legal and undocumented are being attacked. We’re already hearing about green card holders being deported for small past offenses, U.S. citizens being racially profiled and arrested, and now this denaturalization theat.”
Ending Birthright Citizenship
Salvador said after her parents became U.S. citizens, her brother was born in Hawaii and is the only sibling among four of them who is a natural-born citizen. She said ending birthright citizenship is another disturbing policy that Trump is pursuing.
“For example, in my family’s case if ending birthright citizenship back then was the law of the land, it could have been a matter of timing that my natural-born U.S. citizen brother wouldn’t have become a citizen. If he was born before my parents became citizens. He was born two years after my parents became citizens. But what if the timing didn’t work out. My parents were legal immigrants at the time so he could have been naturalized, but what if they weren’t. Our family’s life would have been completely different,” Salvador said.
As a matter of one of his first orders of business in his second term, Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. for children of illegal immigrants as well as immigrants legally but temporarily present in the U.S. The executive order aims to challenge the prevailing interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
If Trump’s executive order is successful in the courts, it would not be retroactive but only apply to individuals born 30 days after the order was issued on February 19, 2025.
The latest legal fold: on June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court decided on birthright citizenship limiting the ability of lower-court judges to issue universal injunctions to block such executive order nationwide. SCOTUS did not rule on the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
But on July 10, 2025, a New Hampshire federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction to prevent federal officials from enforcing the order nationally. Judge Joseph LaPlante was able to avoid that limit on issuing a nationwide injunction by certifying the case as a class action lawsuit encompassing all children affected by the birthright order, following a pathway suggested by the Supreme court ruling.
While the legal maneuvering continues over birthright citizenship that most legal experts believe is a losing uphill battle, the attempt itself by the Trump administration to pursue such a legal challenge has some questioning his motivation.
Alcubilla, an attorney, opposes Trump’s ending birthright citizenship executive order. “The 14th Amendment is clear: no politician, including the President of the United States, is above the law and can decide unilaterally who among those born in this country is ‘worthy’ of citizenship. This executive order goes against not only the U.S. Constitution but over 100 years of Supreme Court precedent. Denying citizenship to children born in this country denies them the right to be full members of American society and to live freely in the country they are born.”
Public opinion on immigration is turning
A new Gallup poll released this week found a big swing in Americans’ opinions about immigrants in 2025. Gallup wrote, “Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today. At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.” A record-low, 17 percent, view immigration as a “bad thing.”
In the same poll, it shows a steep drop among Republicans wanting immigration levels into the U.S. decreased – falling from 88% in 2024 down to 48% in June. The same survey showed an uptick in Republicans who see immigration as having a positive effect on the U.S.
The poll’s findings were based on a June 2-26 Gallup poll of 1,402 adults in the United States. Gallup pollsters said the results mark a reverse in a four-year trend, when concerns about immigration began rising in 2021.
Alcubilla said “President Trump’s harsh immigration policies are backfiring in the court of public opinion and as recent polls have shown, many Americans are seeing the importance of immigration and the need for a more humane immigration policy. Although I have family members that voted for President Trump and we may not agree on the direction of this administration’s current policies, what makes this country great is that we are free to disagree. Now, simply disagreeing puts you in danger of losing citizenship.”
Liongson opined, “All these Trump immigration policies – plans to denaturalize immigrant U.S. citizens, thoughts of revoking birthright citizenship, mass deportation, internment in concentration camps, deportation to foreign countries not of one’s country of origin — are unjust, inhumane, unlawful, and possibly unconstitutional.
“These policies are not to make America great again. That motto is deceptive and false. In reality, these policies are designed to make America White again. The Trump immigration policies are consistent with the growing assertion of White supremacy across the country, and it is urgently imperative that the nation recognizes this. Such an assertion is racist, immoral, illegal, and un-American. I am concerned that under an authoritarian and racist regime, unless you are White, you are not safe.”
Liongson mentions statistics: the White population in the United States is decreasing as a percentage of the total population, and in some cases, decreasing in absolute numbers. While still the largest racial group, the White population’s share has been declining due to increased diversity and population growth among other racial and ethnic groups. According to the 2020 census, 61.6% of Americans, or 204,277,273 people, identified as White alone. This represented a national decrease from a 72.4% white alone share of the US population in the 2010 census. He said, “this demographic trend is bothering White supremacists, and this is why all these immigration developments are taking place.”
Salvador expressed sadness over immigrants working as ICE agents. “In social media I see – in spite of facial coverings – some ICE agents who appear to be Asian or Latino. I think the widespread ICE raids, as vast and intense as they are, are motivated by a white supremacist agenda. The sad part is that these ICE agents who are minorities don’t see the harm they are doing to their own communities of color. Deportation of illegals is one thing, and acceptable in some cases that are reviewed and go through due process, but not what we see happening. The racial profiling is blatant racism. Trump’s collective anti-immigrant agenda, all of his policies reviewed as a whole, I think when you examine them it’s not a radical idea to say a form of ethnic cleansing is taking place.”
About Author
+ There are no comments
Add yours