Can the U.S. government revoke citizenship without the person's consent under current law?
Executive summary
The U.S. government can revoke citizenship of naturalized (foreign‑born) Americans through denaturalization, but only by suing in federal court (civilly) or by securing a criminal conviction for naturalization fraud; native‑born (14th Amendment) citizens cannot be stripped of citizenship by the government, and denaturalization requires high legal standards and judicial process (see 8 U.S.C. §1451 and Constitution Annotated) [1] [2]. Agencies (USCIS, DOJ) have clear policies and recent enforcement emphasis, but civil denaturalization remains legally constrained by evidentiary burdens and constitutional safeguards described in court precedent and policy guidance [3] [4].
1. What the law actually allows: denaturalization by courts
Federal law authorizes revocation of naturalization when a person “illegally procured” citizenship or obtained it by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”; the statutory vehicle is 8 U.S.C. §1451 and related INA provisions, and the government must bring a revocation action in federal district court to cancel the certificate of naturalization [1] [5]. The Library of Congress’s Constitution Annotated frames this as Congress’s power over naturalization and notes the longstanding statutory framework for denaturalization [2].
2. Who can — and cannot — be denaturalized
Denaturalization applies to naturalized citizens — those who obtained U.S. citizenship after immigration and naturalization procedures — not to citizens born in the United States; Supreme Court precedent and legal commentary underscore that native‑born citizenship cannot be stripped by executive or congressional action [2] [6]. Several fact‑checks and legal explainers repeat: the government cannot unilaterally strip birthright citizens; voluntary renunciation remains the path for losing birthright citizenship [7] [8].
3. Two legal tracks: civil revocation and criminal fraud
Practically, the government pursues denaturalization in two distinct ways: civil revocation proceedings under the INA (no statute of limitations for civil denaturalization) and criminal prosecutions for naturalization fraud that can lead to loss of citizenship as a consequence of conviction [3] [9]. DOJ and USCIS coordinate referrals; USCIS refers cases to DOJ when it believes there is sufficient evidence and DOJ files in U.S. District Court or brings criminal charges [10] [9].
4. Burdens, protections and legal hurdles
Courts require the government to meet a high evidentiary standard before taking away citizenship: the Supreme Court has repeatedly required “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” proof in civil denaturalization cases because citizenship is a fundamental right [3]. Practitioners and policy sources note procedural differences between civil and criminal tracks — civil cases historically lack some protections (no automatic right to appointed counsel, no jury), but they remain judicial actions rather than unilateral administrative revocations [3] [10].
5. Grounds the government uses in practice
USCIS and DOJ focus denaturalization on cases where applicants concealed disqualifying facts (serious criminal history, fraud, membership in organizations that would have barred naturalization, or other eligibility defects), and policy memos in 2025 expanded enforcement priorities to include national‑security and certain criminal categories [4] [11]. DOJ has created a Denaturalization Section and publicly framed denaturalization as a tool against individuals who “unlawfully obtained citizenship,” including terrorists and sex offenders [9].
6. Scale, consequences, and contested politics
There are roughly 24.5 million naturalized Americans, and advocates warn that broadened denaturalization priorities could put many at risk if the government aggressively pursues marginal misstatements on applications; legal groups (AILA, Brennan Center) emphasize both historical use in limited cases and concern about expansion as a policy tool [10] [3] [12]. DOJ and some proponents frame denaturalization as protecting the integrity of citizenship; civil liberties groups and immigration advocates warn of overreach and disparate impacts [9] [3].
7. Practical takeaways and unresolved questions
If a naturalized citizen faces allegations of fraud or illegal procurement, the government can seek revocation without that person’s consent — but only via court proceedings that require strong proof and carry appeal rights [1] [3]. Available sources do not mention the government having any lawful mechanism to strip native‑born U.S. citizens of citizenship other than voluntary renunciation [7] [2]. How aggressively denaturalization will be used going forward depends on DOJ/USCIS priorities, political decisions, and future court rulings [9] [11].
Limitations: This summary relies on statutory text, government policy releases, and legal analyses in the provided sources; it does not review specific court opinions or the full text of every DOJ or USCIS memo beyond the cited summaries [5] [9] [3].