Think Immigration: Citizenship as a Weapon: Is Denaturalization an Increasing Threat?

Denaturalization is the revocation of formally granted U.S. citizenship. It is not to be confused with renunciation or revocation of U.S. citizenship, which involves an individual giving up his or her U.S. citizenship voluntarily. Notably, denaturalization is not a new concept, and it is not a uniquely American idea. In fact, citizenship status and the threat of losing it have been used since antiquity as a tool to reward and punish–and thereby control—citizens.

For instance, in ancient Rome, being a Roman citizen was a world-class privilege that could be bestowed upon non-Roman individuals for great civic contributions or even for sizeable monetary investments. An enslaved person in Roman times could strive to become a free Roman citizen, and Romans notoriously looked down on non-Roman citizens as “barbarians.” England’s 1290 Edict of Expulsion ordered all Jews to leave, categorizing them as non-citizens (something the Nazis would also do in 1930s Germany, as would Mussolini in fascist Italy). Spain expelled thousands of Muslims and Jews during the Inquisition as non-citizens. The Ottoman Empire increasingly restricted the rights of Armenians by denying them full citizenship rights and by carrying out – among numerous other atrocities – including mass deportations of Armenians. The 1901 Australian “immigration restriction act” caused hundreds of Chinese Australians to lose their citizen-given right to vote. The 1970s Black Citizenship Act of South Africa during Apartheid led to thousands of black South Africans becoming citizens of government-created “homelands” and being stripped of actual South African citizenship. Many Cubans who fled the Castro regime would forever give up their right to Cuban citizenship, or to freely return to Cuba. These are but a few examples of how granting or revoking citizenship was used as a tool by governments to exert control over segments of population within their sphere of influence. It is certainly a history to be aware of when our own government begins to talk about how to restrict citizenship rights.

Under current U.S. law, denaturalization can only occur by judicial order, either through civil proceedings or a criminal conviction of naturalization fraud. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) typically will refer suspect naturalization cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) when the agency believes sufficient evidence exists that the applicant is subject to one of the grounds of denaturalization.

The main grounds are 1. fraud under INA § 304(a) or 2. Illegal procurement of naturalization under 18 U.S.C. § 1425. The fraud (“procurement of naturalization by concealing a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”) must have occurred either orally during the naturalization interview or in writing during the application process. The elements of fraudulent procurement of naturalization are 1. the individual misrepresented or concealed a fact, 2. the misrepresentation or concealment was willful, 3. the misrepresented or concealed fact was material, and 4. the individual procured citizenship as a result of such misrepresentation or concealment. The second ground, illegal procurement of naturalization, applies when the individual who naturalized was not in fact legally eligible to do so. For instance, the individual did not meet the good moral character, physical presence, or lawful admission for permanent residence requirement. In this situation, citizenship can be revoked even if the applicant had no fraudulent intent. If it believes sufficient evidence exists, the DOJ’s U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) next files a revocation of naturalization action (for civil cases) or criminal charges (for criminal cases) in Federal District Court. A federal agency such as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cannot revoke citizenship on its own. The decision must be made by a federal judge after a person has been given the opportunity to present evidence against denaturalization. A defendant can thereupon choose to voluntarily renounce U.S. citizenship or to contest the charges.

Generally speaking, the individual whose citizenship has been revoked is returned to whatever immigration status he or she had before naturalizing and faces jail time for any criminal basis of denaturalization. While there is no statute of limitation on denaturalization, the federal government must meet the high burden of proof of “clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt” that naturalization was obtained either fraudulently or illegally in order to prevail. Moreover, the materiality requirement for fraud cases is also high. In Masjenlak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017), the government sued to revoke Diana Masjenlak’s U.S. citizenship alleging she had lied about her husband’s membership in the Serbian militia. The Supreme Court held that “small omissions and minor lies” which did not tend to influence the grant of citizenship should not result in denaturalization, setting a high bar for the requirement of materiality in fraud-based denaturalization cases.

In order to impose criminal consequences in a naturalization case based on illegality, the burden of proof required is beyond a reasonable doubt.

The DOJ routinely sets guidance on the types of cases it prioritizes for denaturalization. In prior administrations, such priorities included cases involving national security risks, war criminals, and those who omitted serious criminal history from their naturalization application. This presents a wide expansion of the scope for potential naturalization cases, but it remains to be seen how this will play out in real life.

Notably, denaturalization cases involve significant resources, and without additional funding the proposed scope will be difficult to carry out. From 1990 until 2017, the federal government opened an average of 11 denaturalization cases a year. During the first Trump administration, this number increased to 25 cases a year.

In June 2025, the Trump administration published a memo, adding the following additional denaturalization priorities to the already existing list: individuals who furthered activities of gangs or cartels, individuals involved with human trafficking offenses, individuals who committed financial fraud and those who obtained naturalization through fraud and government corruption. The memo also made denaturalization one of the Trump administration’s “Top 5 immigration enforcement priorities.” However, this may be more of the administration’s usual filling the airwaves with political messaging designed to invoke fear in immigrants. The cost of the resources needed to bring increased denaturalization cases, combined with the high standards that must be met to do so successfully, make it hopefully unlikely that the feared outcome – denaturalization en masse – will become a reality any time soon.

****

Interested in learning more? Check out these AILA Resources:

• Featured Issue page on aila.org
• Latest AILA Policy Brief on Denaturalization