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
free speech
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
Trump's Media Takeover Isn't About Bias, It's About Silencing Dissent
The Trump administration is weaponizing psychological terminology to create a world where one pathetic old man can stifle all entertainment that forces him to confront his own obvious inadequacies and irrelevance.
Aug 02, 2025
It's remarkable how much happens that barely makes the news. While we scroll through memes and sensationalized soundbites, our attention monetized by oligarchs who profit from our stupor, democracy dies in broad daylight.
Many of us fastidiously tracking political events may have missed a chilling detail buried in the Paramount/CBS merger: a "bias monitor." The Trump administration installed this Orwellian position alongside the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion at CBS and Paramount. According to Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Anna Gomez, the sole dissenting vote against the merger, this represents "just another part of this administration's campaign of censorship and control."
Commissioner Gomez explained the gravity of this so-called monitor: "What they're saying is that they are going to self-censor basically for ideological purity according to what this administration likes and to report only in the way this administration likes. Apparently, bias is anything this administration doesn't like. And that is what they're promising not to show anymore to their consumers."
This is not a threat. It is a promise being delivered.
When Satire Dies, Democracy Dies
Stephen Colbert's cancellation marks that promise in action. The highest-rated late-night host, Emmy-nominated, and like other effective comedians, someone who has pointed out the absurdities of our political system for decades. As Inae Oh of Mother Jones reported, "one could argue that [until now] Trump's attacks had yet to take down our actual culture. I'm talking about the literal content we consume—the television, art, movies, literature, music—no matter how much Trump complained. That it remained protected and free-willed, a rare area of control for a public that otherwise feels powerless to take action." The cancellation of Colbert changes this. We are witnessing the first successful assault on the cultural sphere itself.
They're not just coming for our votes or our institutions, they're coming for our imagination, our ability to envision a different world.
What does it mean to have a president who uses his enormous platform to pathetically attack performers and entertainers? Just in the last week of July, U.S. President Donald Trump personally attacked Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Oprah, Bono, Taylor Swift, Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and Joy Behar. These attacks aren't just the desperate posturing of a has-been reality TV star president, they threaten to become official government-led investigations.
Of course, there's no credible evidence for any of his claims. But that hasn't prevented the capitulation of systems that could fight back. Recently, Brown, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, University of California Los Angeles, Paramount, Disney, and Meta all paid multimillion dollar settlements ($221 million in the case of Columbia) to the Trump administration to avoid litigation. This litigation could have helped establish some balance of power in this country. Because of these capitulations, they are now all complicit in the dismantling of our democracy.
This Is Not About Bias
Let me be clear as a psychologist: This is not about bias. Bias is a tendency, often unconscious, that leads to preferences or disfavor of people, ideas, or beliefs, often in ways that are unfair. Real biases manifest as stereotypes, prejudices, and systematic preferences that shape how we perceive and interact with the world.
If we genuinely wanted a bias monitor at any corporation, it would require enormous funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion purposes. Actual bias monitoring would examine unconscious prejudices, systemic discrimination, and unfair treatment of marginalized groups. This is the opposite of what the Trump administration has been doing as all the policies being enacted reinforce white supremacy.
What we have instead is the Trump administration weaponizing psychological terminology to create a world where one pathetic old man can stifle all entertainment that forces him to confront his own obvious inadequacies and irrelevance.
This isn't about bias, it's about following the predictable playbook of authoritarians. This suppression of critical voices mirrors what happens in North Korea, where the government exerts near-total control over media and entertainment, allowing only content that glorifies the ruling family while strictly banning dissent or satire. There are no North Korean Stephen Colberts. Critical art is suppressed, and those attempting to create or access it face harsh punishment, including forced labor or execution.
The Revolutionary Power of Art
While this moment is dire, I believe in the revolutionary power of art. History shows us that authoritarian regimes fear artists above all else because art reveals truth in ways that propaganda cannot counter.
To all who continue to create—comedians, performers, writers, artists—don't stop. Keep faith in the transformative power of art because, in Toni Morrison's words, "Art takes us and makes us take a journey beyond price, beyond cost, into bearing witness to the world as it is and as it should be."
As we navigate this slide away from democracy, we need artists to continue creating more than ever. Every joke that punctures pomposity, every song that speaks truth to power, every story that humanizes the dehumanized is an act of resistance.
The Trump administration understands something we must remember: Culture shapes consciousness. They're not just coming for our votes or our institutions, they're coming for our imagination, our ability to envision a different world.
As usual, Trump doesn't get humanity and doesn't understand that art has always thrived under oppression. The most powerful voices often emerge from the margins, from the underground, from those who refuse to be silenced.
This "bias monitor" isn't monitoring bias, it's monitoring our humanity. And that's exactly why we must not let them win.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jewish Safety and the Weaponization of Antisemitism
Jews are made safer by working with others for a world that works for everyone. Jewish safety must be grounded in calls for collective liberation, not defense of a murderous regime.
Jul 31, 2025
This is a very strange time to be Jewish. There is much talk about a rise in antisemitism, but all around me I see people doing things in the name of protecting Jews—such as dismissing criticism of Israel as antisemitic—that are likely to make us less rather than more safe in this world. The very notion of Jewish safety has been weaponized by people who are objectively enemies of the Jewish people.
Jewish safety matters for Jews, and it should matter for everyone. Jews have often played the role of being canaries in the coalmine of political health. A society that is safe for Jews is more likely to be safe for everyone than one that isn’t. Jews are made safer by working with others for a world that works for everyone. Jewish safety must be grounded in calls for collective liberation.
Conflating Criticism of Israel with Antisemitism Makes Jews Less Safe
Many of the mainstream organizations that purport to speak for Jews work actively to make the case that criticism of Israel is a form of antisemitism and to punish those who work to separate those things. It is difficult to know the extent of antisemitism because this conflation skews the data.
Many mainstream Jewish organizations continue to fight to get institutions to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition, in its fine print, defines criticism of Israel as antisemitism. In 2021, when Silicon Valley Hillel tried to get the student government of De Anza College, where I teach, to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, students organized and beat it back. In the process many Jewish people came to speak in favor of us adopting the definition and accused opponents of antisemitism. Through similar struggles throughout the country, the IHRA definition has been adopted widely, and it is now federal policy.
The conflation of criticisms of Israel with antisemitism makes Jews less safe.
The state of Israel is bombing and intentionally targeting civilians in Gaza. Over 60,000 defenseless people have been killed. People are dying of starvation. People are being killed as they line up for food. These actions are clearly violations of international law and the rules of war. Speaking out against these horrific crimes should be expected of all people of conscience. Many of us raised with calls of “never again” feel compelled to speak out in the name of our Jewish values. And yet our voices are often shut down by other Jews. Many mainstream Jewish organizations continue to actively target those who speak out against these atrocities, and they often do so with charges of antisemitism.
The conflation of criticisms of Israel with antisemitism makes Jews less safe. It associates all of us with the acts of a murderous regime. It obscures and confuses the very real and rising antisemitism associated with white supremacy. It leaves us without powerful mainstream voices to act on our behalf.
Friends of Israel Are Not Necessarily Friends of Jews
There are many good reasons why people support the state of Israel. Many Jews are deeply attached to Israel because of real lived family ties. Many feel that Israel was founded to keep Jews safe. And yet many people support Israel because it is a pro-Western outpost in a Middle East that is largely not aligned with Western imperial interests. Those motivations for supporting Israel are often opposed to broad notions of human rights and respect for national sovereignty. and so are not aligned with the kinds of policies that would make the world safer for Jewish people.
Even worse, are those who support Israel out of adherence to a deeply antisemitic theology. Christians United for Israel (CUFI) claims 10 million members and describes itself as “the foremost Christian organization educating and empowering millions of Americans to speak and act with one voice in defense of Israel and the Jewish people.” They say their goal is to “oppose antisemitism and stand with the Jewish people.”
Its leader, John Hagee, argues that Jews must inhabit all of the biblical Holy Land and rebuild the temple in Jerusalem in order to bring about the return of Jesus and the end-of-days apocalypse. At that time, Jews will either convert or be condemned to damnation. In other words: Jews are a means to a Christian end, and not a people to be valued for ourselves. The U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, is a follower of this antisemitic theology.
In Alameda County in California, local residents have been organizing to get the board of supervisors to pass an ethical investment policy. This policy would outlaw investing in companies that do business with human rights abusers. Politicians’ in-boxes were flooded with letters opposing the divestment, on the basis that a policy that disallowed investment in companies that engaged in human rights abuses, might disallow investments in companies doing business with Israel. It turns out that the flood of email was coming from outside the county, and indeed from outside the state. The main group organizing opposition to the Alameda County divestment was CUFI.
It makes us less safe as Jews when we ally ourselves with antisemitic voices simply because those voices support the state of Israel.
Project Esther and the Weaponization of Charges of Antisemitism for Right-Wing Politics
In 2024, the Heritage Foundation, which gave us Project 2025, launched Project Esther. It calls for a systematic campaign against protest in favor of Palestinian rights and opposition to the ongoing massacre in Gaza. It attempts to link criticism of Israel with support for terrorism.
Project Esther is part of the right-wing assault on freedom of speech and the right to protest. While masquerading as a pro-Jewish project, Project Esther actually has very little Jewish support. The project makes opportunistic use of the concept of Jewish safety for a deeply right- wing political project.
Having Jews persecuted for peaceful protest is not “good for the Jews.”
Sometimes it is difficult to understand what interests the current chaotic administration is serving. Its electoral strength comes from appealing to a sense of grievance among people struggling to make it in a difficult economy. The big money that helped the administration get elected comes from two sectors of the business class: the fossil fuel industry and the technology industry. Unlike the rest of business, those two sectors were not well served by the dominant neoliberal consensus. And so, they have appealed to people’s grievances to win popular support for unpopular policies. Those economic interests are served by shutting down protest and free speech.
Efforts to shut down the right to resist, and to shut down free speech on campus, in order to bolster an authoritarian government that acts in the interests of the fossil fuel and tech oligarchies, are not good for our democratic institutions and they are not good for Jewish people. We should not let them do those things in our names.
Jewish Safety Requires Protecting Jewish People of All Points of View
It is hard to say that you are working for Jewish safety when you are asking that Jewish students who speak out against the genocide in Gaza be thrown out of school. It is hard to say you are working for Jewish safety when you engage in policies that harm Jewish faculty and staff.
As one of very few Jewish faculty at my college, I was recently under a formal investigation for antisemitism. The accusation was part of a round of condemnation that began when my office invited a Jewish speaker to campus to speak about October 7 and the attack on Gaza. The event was critical of both Hamas and of the Israeli government.
Having Jews persecuted for peaceful protest is not “good for the Jews.” As with people from any group, Jewish people should be safe to express our opinions. Fighting for our rights to be safe—no matter what our opinions—needs to be part of the agenda for Jewish safety.
The Fight Against Antisemitism Needs to Stay Connected to Other Fights for Liberation
In California, mainstream Jewish organizations are pushing a bill through the legislature, AB715, which purports to make Jews safe by appointing a commission on antisemitism. The bill also would make it easier to punish teachers who teach things that are pro-Palestinian or critical of Israel. It would open pathways for the IHRA definition of antisemitism to be used, and so could help to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Many of those opposing the bill, including Jewish Voice for Peace, have argued that putting antisemitism out as a separate and privileged form of oppression makes Jews less safe. There is, of course, antisemitism in California schools, just as there is anti-Black racism. The state of California and its schools have many policies in place that can be used to challenge discrimination. Those policies can already be used to fight antisemitism. More can, and should, be done to fight all forms of oppression experienced by California’s schoolchildren. But separating antisemitism from other forms of oppression, and giving it a privileged place, undermines the solidarity Jews have with other fights for liberation. That solidarity is crucial for increasing Jewish safety.
Jewish Safety Should Be Centered on Solidarity and Calls for Collective Liberation
Given that mainstream Jewish organizations continue to vehemently insist on conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism; given that Israel’s most powerful supporters in the U.S. right now are active antisemites; given the alignment of the state of Israel with right-wing forces that want to shut down rights to protest and free speech, including those of Jews; it is hard to see how supporting the government of Israel will make us safe.
Calls for the liberation of all people are deep in Jewish culture and theology. We thrive in societies that are pluralist and tolerant. We are often the consciences of society. We often feel it in our bones when danger is coming before others are even aware that the winds of destruction are starting to blow. It is a part of our cultural DNA to speak out and fight for justice. Many of us are willing to take risks to fight those evils because we know that when we all stand up, pogroms are less likely to happen.
Making the world safe for Jews is something that is good for everyone. We need to stay in alignment with those deeper values of justice and a world that works for all. We need to insist that we increase Jewish safety when we work for collective liberation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular