SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
department of justice
Trump 2.0’s Mass Denaturalizations Will Make the US Less Diverse and Less Free
Although denaturalization rates have declined over the past several decades, there is ample historical precedent for the revival U.S. President Donald Trump is planning.
Aug 06, 2025
There are nearly 25 million naturalized citizens in the United States, accounting for 7% of the total population. Each and every one of them should be laser-focused on the Trump administration’s plans to denaturalize and deport as many of them as possible.
Denaturalization is the process by which the federal government revokes the citizenship of persons born outside of the country who became citizens by meeting the standards set by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which include swearing an oath of allegiance to the United States, and demonstrating “good moral character.”
Although denaturalization rates have declined over the past several decades, there is ample historical precedent for the revival U.S. President Donald Trump is planning. Between 1906 and 1967—when the Supreme Court stepped in to tighten the legal requirements—more than 22,000 Americans were denaturalized. Many were left-wing activists who were singled out during the two Red Scares of the 20th century. A common method to denaturalize them was to accuse them of fraud in taking their oaths of allegiance. In 1919, in perhaps the most famous case of all, the government deported Emma Goldman to Russia under the Anarchist Exclusion Act after revoking her naturalized citizenship. In the 1950s, the government tried but failed to denaturalize labor leader Harry Bridges.
On June 11, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate wrote a memorandum that lists denaturalization as one of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) top legal objectives to further Trump’s political goals. The memo was directed to the DOJ’s Civil Division, the department’s largest litigating component, which represents the United States and its executive agencies, members of Congress, cabinet officers, and other federal employees in thousands of legal matters each year. It instructed the division’s attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence,” focusing on 10 broad categories of enforcement actions:
1. Cases against individuals who pose a potential danger to national security, including those with a nexus to terrorism, espionage, or the unlawful export from the United States of sensitive goods, technology, or information raising national security concerns;
2. Cases against individuals who engaged in torture, war crimes, or other human rights violations;
3. Cases against individuals who further or furthered the unlawful enterprise of criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations, and drug cartels;
4. Cases against individuals who committed felonies that were not disclosed during the naturalization process;
5. Cases against individuals who committed human trafficking, sex offenses, or violent crimes;
6. Cases against individuals who engaged in various forms of financial fraud against the United States (including Paycheck Protection Program [“PPP”] loan fraud and Medicaid or Medicare fraud);
7. Cases against individuals who engaged in fraud against private individuals, funds, or corporations;
8. Cases against individuals who acquired naturalization through government corruption, fraud, or material misrepresentations, not otherwise addressed by another priority category;
9. Cases referred by a United States Attorney’s Office or in connection with pending criminal charges, if those charges do not fit within one of the other priorities; and
10. Any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.
The first nine categories are generally consistent with the government’s existing powers, reflecting Trump’s penchant for exploiting the loopholes and weak links in current law whenever feasible. The 10th category, however, is a wildcard that could expand those powers exponentially and lead to a Red Scare encore.
And as dark and dangerous as that possibility sounds, it may be perfectly legal.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Pursuant to this authority, Congress passed the first naturalization act in 1790, and ratified additional acts well into the late 19th century. But it was not until the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1906 that Congress federalized naturalization procedures. The act incorporated earlier race-based legislation that limited naturalization to white people and those with African origins. It also created the Bureau of Immigration Services, the precursor of the present-day U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, which promulgated uniform application forms, and began the process of moving naturalization jurisdiction to the federal courts. (Prior to 1906, immigrants were able to apply for citizenship before any court of record, including state and municipal courts. In 1990, Congress shifted jurisdiction from the federal courts to the executive branch, where it remains to this day, although naturalization ceremonies are still conducted by federal district court judges.)
The Naturalization Act of 1906 was also the first federal law that provided for denaturalization, centered on individuals who had obtained citizenship by fraud, were racially ineligible, and lacked “good moral character.” The act was amended on several occasions, most notably in 1952 by the McCarthy-era McCarran-Walter Act, which added provisions for denaturalization based on activities deemed subversive or connected to communist or communist-front organizations.
Even if Trump’s threats against O’Donnell, Musk, and Mamdani are basically performative, thousands of less affluent naturalized citizens will likely be caught up in the coming denaturalization dragnet.
Today’s denaturalization procedures are set forth in two sections of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Section 1451 authorizes the Department of Justice to institute civil proceedings, alleging that citizenship was “illegally procured” or obtained “by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” The section also mandates denaturalization for individuals who refuse to testify before a congressional committee concerning their alleged subversive activities in cases where they have been convicted of contempt for such refusals.
Section 1425 of Title 8 authorizes criminal prosecutions, making it a felony punishable by 25 years in prison to knowingly procure, “contrary to law, the naturalization of any person.” A conviction results in automatic denaturalization.
Once denaturalized under either section, a person returns to their immigration status before becoming a citizen, rendering them vulnerable to deportation.
It’s easy to see why Trump and his advisers have opted to emphasize civil denaturalization proceedings over criminal prosecutions. In civil cases, there is no right to a jury trial or court appointed counsel, and there is no statute of limitations. The standard of proof is also lower. According to the Supreme Court’s precedent decisions, to prevail, the government must present “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” that the targeted individual obtained citizenship illegally or willfully misrepresented a material fact during the naturalization process. That is a rigorous test, but one far lower than the “beyond a reasonable” doubt standard for criminal prosecutions.
The first Trump administration attempted to make denaturalization a priority, launching an initiative dubbed “Second Look,” which built upon a similar Obama administration program called “Operation Janus” to identify alleged terrorists and fraudsters who had naturalized. In the end, however, Trump 1.0 filed a mere 102 denaturalization cases, amounting to an annual rate higher than the 16 cases per year filed under former President Barack Obama, and eclipsing the total of 24 cases filed under former President Joe Biden, but still miniscule. This time around, Trump 2.0 is pledging to bring the resources of the entire DOJ civil division behind the effort, reviving the specter of mass denaturalization.
The Shumate memo had largely flown under the media’s radar until Trump started talking in early July about deporting former best bro Elon Musk and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, and stripping comedian and longtime celebrity nemesis Rosie O’Donnell of her citizenship.
O’Donnell, who is seeking dual citizenship in Ireland, appears safe from Trump’s clutches as she was born in Commack, New York, and enjoys birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Even Trump’s January executive order attacking birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants would leave her unscathed.
Musk and Mamdani are another story, as both are naturalized citizens. Musk, born in South Africa, naturalized in 2002. Mamdani, born in Uganda to Indian parents, naturalized in 1998. Musk allegedly worked illegally in the U.S. in violation of his student visa after leaving Stanford University in 1995. Mamdani has been accused of posting comments on X quoting rap lyrics suggesting support for Hamas.
Even if Trump’s threats against O’Donnell, Musk, and Mamdani are basically performative, thousands of less affluent naturalized citizens will likely be caught up in the coming denaturalization dragnet. Millions more who are not targeted will be intimidated from exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and full political engagement. The net result will be a society less diverse and less free for the vast majority, exactly what Donald Trump and his cohorts want.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Faces 'State of Emergency' for Civil Rights Under Trump: Urban League Report
"What we face today is a deliberate, coordinated effort to deny the future of a more just and inclusive America," said Marc Morial, the president of the National Urban League, in the latest report on the "State of Black America."
Jul 18, 2025
One of America's oldest civil rights organizations warned Thursday that the country is experiencing a "dangerous tilt toward authoritarianism."
In its annual report on "The State of Black America," the National Urban League said the country is in the midst of a "state of emergency" for racial equality under the second administration of U.S. President Donald Trump as it wages war on voting rights protections; guts Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs; turns civil rights investigations into "tools of political retribution"; and embraces social media platforms that promote hate speech and false information.
"Almost daily, since January 20, 2025, the federal government, at the direction the White House, has set fire to policies and entire departments dedicated to protecting civil and human rights, providing access to an equal education, fair housing, safe and effective healthcare, and ensuring that our democratic process is adhered to across the nation," the report says.
It cites the White House's attacks on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Supreme Court, it says, dealt the "first seismic crack" to the law in 2013 with the Shelby County v. Holder decision, which got rid of the requirement that states with a history of race-based voter suppression clear new voting laws with the Department of Justice.
"Dozens of states have seized on this weakened federal oversight to pass restrictive voting laws—from voter ID requirements that disproportionately burden Black and Latino voters, to aggressive voter roll purges that remove eligible citizens from voter lists, to reduced polling hours and locations in communities of color," wrote Janai Nelson, the president of the NAACP's Legal Defense and Educational Fund, in one essay.
Since then, Nelson writes, "The Trump administration has launched a full-scale assault on what remains."
Nelson notes the president's "sweeping executive order requiring individuals to show documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote—and permitting only a narrow set of documents, such as a passport, that many Americans don't have easy access to."
She also notes that the administration "shifted the focus of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division away from protecting voting rights and toward investigating voter fraud, even though such fraud is exceedingly rare."
In another essay, Samantha Tweedy, the CEO of the Black Economic Alliance, described "an all-out assault on... Black liberty, livelihood, history, prosperity, economic power, and opportunity," being carried out "under the false premise and scapegoating of 'Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.'"
The Trump administration has aggressively sought to purge DEI initiatives and affirmative action from all sectors of public life, banning them from use in the federal government and putting pressure on private corporations and universities to abandon them as well.
Fueling this, Tweedy says, is the "destructive lie" that "for Black people to succeed, others must lose out." The report goes on to cite statistics from the Federal Reserve Bank, Citi, and McKinsey showing that closing economic disparities increases economic prosperity for the entire country.
One of the engines propelling the Trump administration's attack on civil rights has been the DOJ's Civil Rights division itself, which the report says has been "hollowed out and repurposed" to go after universities that pursue DEI initiatives.
The report also singled out Harmeet Dhillon, who Trump tapped to lead the Civil Rights Division, for her past assertions that the 2020 election was stolen and her writings arguing against the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would have restored power to the original law.
The report also highlighted the recent surge of racist rhetoric on billionaire-owned social media platforms, which have abandoned many content moderation policies in recent years.
The report especially singled out the violent shift on Elon Musk's X, which saw a dramatic increase in hate speech against racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people after the billionaire bought the platform.
"We are witnessing something more than policy shifts," said the Urban League's president and CEO, Marc H. Morial, in the report's foreword. "We are watching an attempt to turn back the clock to an era when the full humanity of all Americans was not recognized—when the idea of true equality was treated as a threat to the social order."
"What we face today is a deliberate, coordinated effort to deny the future of a more just and inclusive America," Morial said. "And the architects of this effort have made their intentions plain: they would rather see our democracy crumble than cede power to a multiracial, equitable society."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'What Are They Hiding?': Republicans Block Vote to Release Epstein Files
"We won't stop until the files are released," Rep. Ro Khanna said after the GOP shot down his amendment. "This may have been our first attempt, but the public will not be gaslit. We will keep fighting for transparency."
Jul 15, 2025
Republicans on the House Rules Committee have blocked an amendment that would force the Department of Justice to release the full Jeffrey Epstein files to the public.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced the amendment to a cryptocurrency bill on Monday, seizing on the controversy that erupted after the Trump administration said it would not release any more documents related to the sex-trafficking billionaire.
Had the measure passed out of committee, it would have required the entire House to vote on whether to force Attorney General Pam Bondi to publish all documents related to Epstein to a "publicly accessible website."
"Trump promised that his administration would release the Epstein files to the public," Khanna said before the amendment's introduction. "Now, the Department of Justice is shielding Trump's rich and powerful friends by refusing to release additional files."
All four Democrats on the committee voted for Khanna's amendment. They were joined by Republican Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.). Seven other Republicans voted the measure down, while Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) did not vote.
Explaining why he joined Democrats, Norman said: "The public's been asking for it. I think there are files. All of a sudden not to have files is a little strange. We'll see how it plays out… I think the president will do the right thing."
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the chair of the Rules Committee, defended her colleagues' decision to vote down the amendment.
"I think most of us believe what's appropriate will be released when it is time for the president to release it," Foxx said.
The administration's back-track on the Epstein files has ripped apart the MAGA coalition in recent days, with prominent Trump allies issuing some of their fiercest criticisms of the president's entire second term after he told the public to "not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein."
Trump himself is also potentially implicated in the release of the files. He has a well-documented history with Epstein, who once referred to himself on tape as "Donald Trump's closest friend."
In June, amid a public falling-out with the president, billionaire Elon Musk said that the Trump administration, which he'd just departed, was covering up the files to protect Trump.
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.), who voted in favor of the amendment, said before the vote that it was of particular interest to her as the chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus.
"The Epstein files concern the abuse of women and the abuse of children," Fernández said to her Republican colleagues. "Why are they not just releasing them?"
"What are they hiding?" she asked on Instagram after the vote failed.
Khanna said this will not be the last attempt to get a vote to the House floor for a release of the files.
"We should see whose side are you on. That's really what this Epstein file issue has become," he told MSNBC. "It's not just about knowing who's being protected, the rich and the powerful...who had interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. It's the sense that people have that the government is too beholden to certain interests who have their thumb on the scale."
He mentioned other Democratic congresspeople who are pushing for the release of the files, including Marc Veasey (D-Texas) who introduced his own resolution calling for their release this weekend.
"We won't stop until the files are released," Khanna wrote on X. "This may have been our first attempt, but the public will not be gaslit. We will keep fighting for transparency."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular