How does U.S. denaturalization law work and how often has it been used against public figures?
Executive summary
Denaturalization in U.S. law is the judicial revocation of naturalized citizenship, permitted when citizenship was allegedly procured by fraud or when an individual is subject to narrow statutory grounds like wartime conduct or certain criminality; it can be pursued via civil suits or criminal prosecutions with different standards and time limits [1] [2] [3]. Although officials have recently signaled an intent to expand its use — creating a dedicated DOJ Denaturalization Section in 2025 — actual denaturalizations remain comparatively rare and subject to significant constitutional and judicial guardrails that constrain political misuse [4] [5].
1. How the law actually authorizes denaturalization
Congress’s authority to govern naturalization and denaturalization traces to the Constitution and early statutes such as the Naturalization Act of 1906, which first provided for revocation procedures; modern statutes and case law set the specific grounds and procedures for stripping naturalized status [1] [6]. Denaturalization can proceed as a civil action brought by the United States or as a criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §1425 for naturalization fraud; civil cases can be brought at any time while criminal cases generally face a ten-year statute of limitations tied to the date of naturalization [2] [3] [7].
2. Legal grounds, burdens and remedies — the courtroom mechanics
Typical government theories include illegal procurement (the applicant was never truly eligible), concealment or material misrepresentation on the naturalization forms or interview, or conduct that falls within enumerated statutory causes such as war crimes or service for an enemy; courts have required meaningful proof and have historically imposed strict guardrails to prevent arbitrary revocations [7] [3] [5]. Civil denaturalization uses a lower burden than criminal conviction but still requires federal court proceedings and judicial orders; criminal denaturalization requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and is subject to the statutory time bar [2] [5].
3. Recent institutional shifts that change enforcement capacity
The Department of Justice created a Denaturalization Section in February 2025 to centralize investigations and litigation, reflecting an administrative decision to prioritize these cases and citing high historical win rates for prior DOJ practice (the DOJ reported the Office of Immigration Litigation had “won 95 percent of the time”) [4]. Advocacy groups and legal scholars warn that this institutional push — paired with prior USCIS efforts to review thousands of cases — substantially increases referrals and the number of denaturalization suits pursued [3] [2].
4. How often it’s been used — statistics and trends
Empirical counts vary: independent researchers and advocacy groups report that denaturalizations historically were uncommon — roughly an average of 11 per year nationwide from 1990–2017 according to one analysis cited in a 2026 New York Times opinion — while targeted decades like the early Trump administration saw surges in referrals and filings [8] [3]. Irina Manta’s tabulation found 168 denaturalization cases filed during President Trump’s first term (about 42 per year) versus 64 filed during President Biden’s term (about 16 per year), illustrating administrative variation across presidencies [3]. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center estimates that routine annual filings tend to be in the tens, not thousands, and notes there is no single public registry of cases [2].
5. Use against public figures — rhetoric vs. legal practice
Public figures have been threatened with denaturalization in political rhetoric — for example mentions of Rep. Ilhan Omar, Zohran Mamdani, and even Elon Musk in public statements — but legal experts and courts historically limit politically motivated revocations and require evidence of legal disqualifying conduct rather than mere dissent or partisan dislike [9] [10] [5]. Actual denaturalization of prominent public figures remains rare in the record: most recent DOJ publicity highlights denaturalizations for fraud or serious criminality (e.g., U.S. v. Hamed and a 2025 denaturalization tied to child sexual abuse convictions), not for political speech [4] [11].
6. Politics, privacy and the risk of weaponization
Critics warn that expanded enforcement and lower evidentiary civil processes could chill speech and disproportionately affect minorities, noting memos and public statements that frame denaturalization as a tool beyond narrow fraud or war-crimes scenarios; proponents counter that the statute targets fraudsters, criminals and national-security threats [12] [3] [9]. Courts and constitutional doctrine remain the primary bulwark, and scholarly observers emphasize both the rule-of-law constraints and the political incentives that could drive selective targeting [5] [12].