Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Eugene

(65,777 posts)
Sat Jul 12, 2025, 01:03 PM Jul 12

Trump Is Threatening to Take Away People's Citizenship. Can He?

Source: Slate Magazine

Trump Is Threatening to Take Away People’s Citizenship. Can He?

Felipe De La Hoz
Fri, July 11, 2025 at 5:40 AM EDT
7 min read

-snip-

Those who’ve been following the administration’s crackdown immediately recognized the latter two points in particular as a catchall for people engaged in disfavored speech and political activity, like Mahmoud Khalil, the former Columbia University graduate student, Palestinian student organizer, and green card holder detained by federal agents in March. That this effort could be used as a form of political policing was further bolstered in the aftermath of Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, after which right-wing figures, including sitting Tennessee Rep. Andy Ogles, called for the naturalized New Yorker to be stripped of citizenship and deported. Ogles sent a letter to that effect to Attorney General Pam Bondi before Trump himself weighed in, musing about having Mamdani arrested.

Yet, as concerning as these developments are, actually going through with a denaturalization is a complicated and legally fraught process. Everyone else who has migrated here—from immigrants lacking legal status to full permanent residents—can be put through the administrative immigration court system, which itself exists within the DOJ and under the control of Trump’s handpicked leader, Bondi. It is this lack of judicial independence that has enabled Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors and immigration judges to collude to dismiss active asylum cases for the agency to be able to arrest people attending their own immigration hearings.

That is not the case for naturalized citizens, though. The immigration courts have no jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, so the only way for the administration to attempt to strip citizenship is to go through the actual federal judiciary, which is far more independent and much less likely to look favorably upon efforts to target the relatively ironclad protections of citizenship. The government can attempt either a civil or criminal denaturalization, with the latter alleging that the naturalization itself was obtained through criminal means. Despite the Supreme Court’s recent kowtowing to the more authoritarian aspects of Trump’s agenda, in the unanimous 2017 decision in Maslenjak v. United States, the court ruled that the government could not strip citizenship from a woman who had lied about her husband having served in the Bosnian Serb army because the denaturalization statute “demands a causal or means-end connection between a legal violation and naturalization.”

-snip-

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/could-trump-actually-deport-elon-094000717.html

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

no_hypocrisy

(52,340 posts)
1. Today, he's threatening to take away
Sat Jul 12, 2025, 01:05 PM
Jul 12

Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship—and she’s living in Ireland.

LetMyPeopleVote

(166,448 posts)
6. Rosies response made me smile
Sat Jul 12, 2025, 03:30 PM
Jul 12


Rosie O’Donnell responds to Donald Trump’s threat to revoke her citizenship in a post on Instagram alongside a photo of him with his best friend Jeffrey Epstein: “hey donald - you're rattled again? 18 years later and I still live rent-free in that collapsing brain of yours. you call me a threat to humanity - but l'm everything you fear: a loud woman. a queer woman. a mother who tells the truth. an american who got out of the country b4 u set it ablaze you build walls - I build a life for my autistic kid in a country where decency still exists. you crave loyalty - I teach my children to question power you sell fear on golf courses - I make art about surviving trauma you lie, you steal, you degrade - I nurture, I create, I persist. you are everything that is wrong with america - and I'm everything you hate about what's still right with it you want to revoke my citizenship? go ahead and try, king joffrey with a tangerine spray tan. I’m not yours to silence. I never was. Rosie 🇮🇪”

Paladin

(31,061 posts)
8. "You sell fear on golf courses."
Sat Jul 12, 2025, 04:22 PM
Jul 12
That's how fucking stupid trump is---trying to take down a powerhouse like Rosie O'Donnell, and never imagining the sort of well-crafted, costly vengeance she'd take against him, in return. Get him, Rosie! No retreat, no surrender, no prisoners!

Eliot Rosewater

(33,180 posts)
2. Not legally or constitutionally of course, but that doesn't matter anymore
Sat Jul 12, 2025, 01:06 PM
Jul 12

It really doesn’t matter anymore. They will just ignore any judge or any court order and eventually it’ll get to the Supreme Court and the fascist Nazis there will clear the way for this piece of shit to destroy America.


100% of this was preventable in 2016. If only people had behaved differently regards, Hillary Clinton. 😡

walkingman

(9,568 posts)
3. I can't prove this is true but I would bet Trump's nickname was "Motor Mouth" when he was growing up.
Sat Jul 12, 2025, 01:12 PM
Jul 12

he is constantly running his mouth. I don't see how he ever had a girlfriend and definitely not a wife.

Who would want to be around him for any length of time?

markodochartaigh

(3,368 posts)
4. From the article:
Sat Jul 12, 2025, 02:08 PM
Jul 12

"One fact often getting lost in the shuffle is that a naturalized citizen cannot be denaturalized for anything that happens after their naturalization. Obviously, a citizen who commits a federal crime can still be prosecuted and imprisoned for it, but their citizenship itself cannot be touched on that basis. Whatever the administration would want to trot out to target a citizen would need to have occurred during or prior to the naturalization process."

Let's hope that whatever judge Trump's doj cherry picks agrees with this, and that the supremacist court does as well.

But the bottom line is, does citizenship even matter if Trump's Imperial Storm Troopers can snatch citizens off the street and dump them anywhere in the world? How long before lgbtq activists are dumped in Uganda where they are subject to the death penalty?

Eliot Rosewater

(33,180 posts)
5. We can count on the piece of shit ignoring judges
Sat Jul 12, 2025, 02:42 PM
Jul 12

And the corrupt Supreme Court letting him do whatever he wants

lees1975

(6,693 posts)
9. No, he can't. The President does not have that power under the constitution.
Sat Jul 12, 2025, 05:09 PM
Jul 12

The answer is NO.

LetMyPeopleVote

(166,448 posts)
10. Legal analysis from Professor Vladeck on trump's ability to strip Rosie of her US Citizenship
Sun Jul 13, 2025, 02:36 PM
Jul 13

Here is a good analysis of denaturalization. It would be almost impossible for trump to strip Rosie of her citizenship without a nasty lawsuit

With President Trump threatening to revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship, it seems like a good time to re-up my explainer on denaturalization and expatriation — and why what Trump is suggesting is … not viable:

Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2025-07-12T18:40:26.584Z

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/146-denaturalization-and-expatriation

For good reasons, it is difficult to denaturalize a U.S. citizen and even harder to expatriate one. As this week’s “Long Read” documents, Congress has provided for only a handful of circumstances in which the executive branch is empowered to pursue such a move; and the Supreme Court has recognized meaningful constitutional limits (and an entitlement to meaningful judicial review) even in those cases. As we’re seeing so often with the current administration, there may well be a legal avenue for at least some of what it appears to want to accomplish, but that legal avenue has too much, you know, law, interposing both substantive limits and procedural requirements between the President and his policy preferences......

Historically, and for good reasons, it has been exceptionally difficult for the government to involuntarily revoke an American’s citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1481 identifies seven classes of activities that can subject citizens to a loss of citizenship:

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.


As should be clear from this list, most of the circumstances involve behavior in which an individual has manifested a specific and voluntary desire to surrender their citizenship—and not when citizenship has been revoked as a punishment. And even for subsection (a)(7), the one part that doesn’t seem to require that on its face, the statute today includes an umbrella condition—that loss of citizenship depends upon whether the individual “voluntarily perform[ed] any of the [specified] acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.”......

Section 1481 applies to all U.S. citizens. For naturalized citizens (i.e., those who become citizens after birth), there’s one additional basis for revoking citizenship—and that’s if and only if their citizenship was “illegally procured or . . . procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” Here, too, the statute (and, almost certainly, the Constitution) requires notice and meaningful judicial review before an American’s citizenship can be stripped. As 8 U.S.C. § 1451(b) mandates,

The party to whom was granted the naturalization alleged to have been illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation shall, in any such proceedings under subsection (a) of this section, have sixty days’ personal notice, unless waived by such party, in which to make answers to the petition of the United States . . . .

Of course, the government can pursue denaturalization on broader grounds than it can pursue expatriation—since the Constitution doesn’t create a substantive right to naturalization in the same way it does for birthright citizenship. But the key is that here, too, the Supreme Court has regularly insisted not only on meaningful judicial review of denaturalization proceedings, but on construing the relevant statutes narrowly—including, most recently, in 2017. (For much more on the complexities of denaturalization, see this fantastic February 2020 “Practice Advisory” from the National Lawyers Guild and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.)

In other words, although denaturalization is potentially available in more cases than expatriation, it still requires meaningful, individualized judicial review—review that holds the government to a significant burden in providing that an individual wrongfully obtained their citizenship, and not just that they engaged in questionable behavior thereafter. There is, simply, no easy, fast path to revoking any American’s citizenship without their consent—and there hasn’t been for decades. That may not stop the current administration from trying it anyway, or from removing citizens unlawfully and then resisting the legal consequences. But it’s important to be clear on what the actual legal authority for such maneuvers would be. Here, there isn’t any.

I was so sad to see Professor Vladeck leave the University of Texas Law School.

LetMyPeopleVote

(166,448 posts)
11. Legal analysis from Professor Vladeck on trump's ability to strip Rosie of her US Citizenship
Sun Jul 13, 2025, 02:36 PM
Jul 13

Here is a good analysis of denaturalization. It would be almost impossible for trump to strip Rosie of her citizenship without a nasty lawsuit

With President Trump threatening to revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship, it seems like a good time to re-up my explainer on denaturalization and expatriation — and why what Trump is suggesting is … not viable:

Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2025-07-12T18:40:26.584Z

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/146-denaturalization-and-expatriation

For good reasons, it is difficult to denaturalize a U.S. citizen and even harder to expatriate one. As this week’s “Long Read” documents, Congress has provided for only a handful of circumstances in which the executive branch is empowered to pursue such a move; and the Supreme Court has recognized meaningful constitutional limits (and an entitlement to meaningful judicial review) even in those cases. As we’re seeing so often with the current administration, there may well be a legal avenue for at least some of what it appears to want to accomplish, but that legal avenue has too much, you know, law, interposing both substantive limits and procedural requirements between the President and his policy preferences......

Historically, and for good reasons, it has been exceptionally difficult for the government to involuntarily revoke an American’s citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1481 identifies seven classes of activities that can subject citizens to a loss of citizenship:

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.


As should be clear from this list, most of the circumstances involve behavior in which an individual has manifested a specific and voluntary desire to surrender their citizenship—and not when citizenship has been revoked as a punishment. And even for subsection (a)(7), the one part that doesn’t seem to require that on its face, the statute today includes an umbrella condition—that loss of citizenship depends upon whether the individual “voluntarily perform[ed] any of the [specified] acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.”......

Section 1481 applies to all U.S. citizens. For naturalized citizens (i.e., those who become citizens after birth), there’s one additional basis for revoking citizenship—and that’s if and only if their citizenship was “illegally procured or . . . procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” Here, too, the statute (and, almost certainly, the Constitution) requires notice and meaningful judicial review before an American’s citizenship can be stripped. As 8 U.S.C. § 1451(b) mandates,

The party to whom was granted the naturalization alleged to have been illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation shall, in any such proceedings under subsection (a) of this section, have sixty days’ personal notice, unless waived by such party, in which to make answers to the petition of the United States . . . .

Of course, the government can pursue denaturalization on broader grounds than it can pursue expatriation—since the Constitution doesn’t create a substantive right to naturalization in the same way it does for birthright citizenship. But the key is that here, too, the Supreme Court has regularly insisted not only on meaningful judicial review of denaturalization proceedings, but on construing the relevant statutes narrowly—including, most recently, in 2017. (For much more on the complexities of denaturalization, see this fantastic February 2020 “Practice Advisory” from the National Lawyers Guild and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.)

In other words, although denaturalization is potentially available in more cases than expatriation, it still requires meaningful, individualized judicial review—review that holds the government to a significant burden in providing that an individual wrongfully obtained their citizenship, and not just that they engaged in questionable behavior thereafter. There is, simply, no easy, fast path to revoking any American’s citizenship without their consent—and there hasn’t been for decades. That may not stop the current administration from trying it anyway, or from removing citizens unlawfully and then resisting the legal consequences. But it’s important to be clear on what the actual legal authority for such maneuvers would be. Here, there isn’t any.

I was so sad to see Professor Vladeck leave the University of Texas Law School.
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Trump Is Threatening to T...