Fact check: Can a president revoke a citizenship of an American citizen

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, a president cannot directly revoke the citizenship of natural-born American citizens. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot take away citizenship from those born in the United States, and the 14th Amendment protects natural-born citizens from having their citizenship revoked ^{[1] [2]}.

However, the situation is different for naturalized citizens. The Department of Justice under the Trump administration announced plans to prioritize denaturalization efforts, which can result in the revocation of citizenship for naturalized Americans who commit certain crimes or who "illegally procured" citizenship through fraud or lies during the naturalization process ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

The president's administration can influence citizenship revocation through policy priorities and enforcement actions, particularly targeting naturalized citizens. The Trump administration adopted a "maximal enforcement" approach, pursuing any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, regardless of priority level or strength of evidence ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial distinctions between different types of American citizens. Natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens face vastly different legal protections regarding citizenship revocation ^{[6] [5]}.

Historical context reveals that denaturalization tactics were heavily used during the McCarthy era and have been expanded during both the Obama and Trump administrations ^[3]. This suggests that citizenship revocation efforts are not new but have been escalated in recent years.

The Trump administration's approach represents a significant shift in enforcement priorities. While previous administrations may have pursued denaturalization in clear-cut cases, the current approach involves pursuing cases regardless of their strength, which raises constitutional concerns ^[5].

Legal scholars and civil rights advocates would benefit from highlighting the constitutional protections that limit presidential power over citizenship, as this serves to protect individual rights and limit executive overreach. Conversely, immigration hardliners and those supporting stricter enforcement would benefit from emphasizing the president's ability to pursue denaturalization of naturalized citizens, as this aligns with their policy goals.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question is overly broad and fails to distinguish between the president's limited authority over natural-born citizens versus naturalized citizens. This omission could lead to misunderstanding about the scope of presidential power regarding citizenship.

The question implies that presidential power over citizenship is uniform across all American citizens, which is factually incorrect. The legal framework provides strong protections for natural-born citizens while allowing for denaturalization of naturalized citizens under specific circumstances ^{[1] [5]}.

The framing suggests direct presidential action, when in reality, citizenship revocation typically occurs through Department of Justice proceedings and court processes, not through direct executive decree ^{[3] [4]}. This distinction is important for understanding how the separation of powers functions in practice regarding citizenship matters.