The Trump administration has dramatically elevated denaturalization as a federal enforcement priority through a June 11, 2025 memorandum directing the Department of Justice Civil Division to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence”. Despite this aggressive policy shift, constitutional law expert Steve Vladeck emphasizes that there is “simply, no easy, fast path to revoking any American’s citizenship without their consent—and there hasn’t been for decades”. This comprehensive analysis examines the legal framework, constitutional limitations, and practical realities surrounding denaturalization enforcement, incorporating detailed procedural and substantive analysis from current legal practice.
Historical Context and Statistical Reality
The Unprecedented Scale of Current Enforcement
Historically, denaturalization was pursued by the U.S. government in extraordinarily small numbers, averaging only eleven cases per year between 1990 and 2017[1]. However, under the first Trump administration, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of denaturalization cases, with denaturalization case referrals to the DOJ increasing by 600 percent. [1].
Operation Janus and Systemic Identification Efforts
In 2010, Operation Janus was launched to continue and expand the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to identify individuals with a final deportation order who naturalized or obtained legal permanent residence status under a different identity. A 2016 DHS Office of Inspector General report determined that there were 1,029 such cases and identified the lack of digital fingerprint records as the main cause of the problem[1].
DHS subsequently identified another 953 cases of naturalized citizens with prior deportation orders under other identities. The OIG report also noted that fingerprint records were lacking in approximately 315,000 cases of non-citizens with final deportation orders or criminal convictions and that in about 148,000 cases Immigration and Customs Enforcement had not yet reviewed and tried to retrieve and digitize old fingerprint cards[1].
Institutional Expansion Under Trump Administration
Under the Trump administration, the government has significantly increased its capacity to investigate U.S. citizens and pursue denaturalization cases. In 2018, USCIS announced that it intended to refer approximately 1,600 cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution and the creation of a new office dedicated to reviewing and referring denaturalization cases to DOJ. DHS also diverted funds from USCIS’s budget to ICE in order to conduct investigations of naturalized citizens[1].
In February 2020, DOJ announced the creation of the Denaturalization Section within DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation which was “dedicated to investigating and litigating revocation of naturalization”. While this section was disbanded under the Biden administration, it has been effectively reconstituted under current enforcement priorities.
The June 11, 2025 DOJ Civil Division Enforcement Memorandum
Brett Shumate’s Policy Directive
On June 11, 2025, Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate issued a comprehensive enforcement memorandum that fundamentally reshapes DOJ priorities regarding denaturalization. The official DOJ memo makes denaturalization one of the Civil Division’s “top five enforcement priorities” alongside combating discriminatory practices, ending antisemitism, protecting women and children, and ending sanctuary jurisdictions.
Full Text of Denaturalization Section
“The Department of Justice may institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either ‘illegally procured’ naturalization or procured naturalization by ‘concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.’ 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). The benefits of civil denaturalization include the government’s ability to revoke the citizenship of individuals who engaged in the commission of war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or other serious human rights abuses; to remove naturalized criminals, gang members, or, indeed, any individuals convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the United States; and to prevent convicted terrorists from returning to U.S. soil or traveling internationally on a U.S. passport.”
The memo continues:
“The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.”
Ten Priority Categories for Enforcement
The Shumate memo establishes specific enforcement categories that significantly expand traditional denaturalization practice:
- National Security Threats: Individuals with nexus to terrorism, espionage, or unlawful export of sensitive technologies
- Human Rights Violations: Those who engaged in torture, war crimes, or other human rights abuses
- Criminal Organizations: Individuals who furthered criminal gangs, transnational organizations, or drug cartels
- Undisclosed Felonies: Those who committed felonies not disclosed during naturalization
- Violent and Sexual Crimes: Individuals convicted of human trafficking, sex offenses, or violent crimes
- Government Fraud: Those who engaged in PPP loan fraud, Medicaid/Medicare fraud, or other federal program fraud
- Private Sector Fraud: Individuals who committed fraud against private entities, funds, or corporations
- Naturalization Fraud: Those who acquired citizenship through government corruption or material misrepresentations
- Criminal Referrals: Cases referred by U.S. Attorney’s Offices in connection with pending charges
- Discretionary Cases: “Any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue”
Operational Implications
Critically, the memo states: “these categories do not limit the Civil Division from pursuing any particular case, nor are they listed in a particular order of importance. Further, the Civil Division retains the discretion to pursue cases outside of these categories as it determines appropriate”.
Why Denaturalization Is Now Nearly Impossible After the Supreme Court’s Ruling
Despite the government’s recent push to identify and prosecute more denaturalization cases, the reality is that actually stripping someone of their citizenship is now extraordinarily difficult—if not nearly impossible—except in the most serious cases. In Maslenjak v. United States (2017), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a naturalized citizen cannot lose their citizenship for a lie or omission unless the government proves that the falsehood was “material”—meaning it actually made a difference in the decision to grant citizenship. Minor mistakes, omissions, or irrelevant lies are not enough. The government must show that it would have denied citizenship had it known the truth.
This standard is so demanding that, in practice, denaturalization is now almost impossible except in cases of serious fraud or criminal conduct that went directly to the heart of eligibility. Even as the DOJ under the Trump administration has announced plans to “prioritize and maximally pursue” denaturalization cases—including creating a special office and reviewing thousands of files—these efforts are overwhelmingly symbolic. The combination of Supreme Court precedent, constitutional protections, and the government’s own evidentiary burden means the vast majority of naturalized Americans have nothing to fear from denaturalization proceedings.
Could the High Bar Let Serious Cases Slip Through?
The Supreme Court’s Maslenjak decision and the “materiality” standard provide critical protections for naturalized citizens, making denaturalization nearly impossible except in the most clear-cut cases of fraud or criminal conduct. The Maslenjak standard is intentionally high to prevent misuse and to protect the security and permanence of citizenship for millions of Americans.
In rare, truly egregious cases—such as war criminals or those who concealed violent crimes—the government can still meet this burden, as long as it can prove the fraud or concealment was material to the citizenship decision.
However, there is a risk that some serious cases could go unpunished if the evidence is ambiguous or if the connection between the misrepresentation and the grant of citizenship cannot be established. This is a deliberate tradeoff in American law: it is far better for a few questionable cases to escape denaturalization than to risk stripping citizenship from people based on technicalities, minor errors, or government overreach. The Supreme Court’s decision reflects a strong commitment to the principle that citizenship, once granted, should be secure and revocable only in the most clear-cut and serious cases.
Legal Framework for Denaturalization
Primary Statutory Grounds
A naturalized U.S. citizen can have that status taken away if the federal government proves by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence in a civil federal court proceeding, or satisfies the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in a comparable criminal case, that the citizen was not qualified for naturalization at the time it was mistakenly granted[1]. The denaturalization process is governed by these provisions of law:
Illegal Procurement or Concealment/Willful Misrepresentation (INA § 340(a))
Illegal Procurement: Naturalization is “illegally procured” when the applicant was in fact ineligible for naturalization by failing to satisfy certain statutory requirements[1]. Because it is a distinct ground for denaturalization, illegal procurement does not require a concealment or misrepresentation of any kind. Rather, the issue is whether the applicant satisfied all of the specific naturalization requirements found in INA §316(a):
- Lawful Permanent Resident Status: The applicant was a lawful permanent resident for the required period (five years or three years if applying as spouse of U.S. citizen)
- Good Moral Character: They were a person of good moral character during the entire statutory period
- Physical Presence: They were physically present in the U.S. for at least half of the required period
- Continuous Residence: They resided continuously in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident for the required period
- Attachment to Constitutional Principles: During the statutory period was “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States”[1]
Concealment and Willful Misrepresentation: Additionally, naturalization may be revoked if it was procured “by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”. There are four requirements to show that naturalization was procured by concealment or misrepresentation: the applicant must have made a (1) willful, (2) concealment or misrepresentation, (3) of a material fact, (4) to procure naturalization[1].
Criminal Denaturalization (18 U.S.C. § 1425)
The INA mandates that courts automatically revoke citizenship of naturalized citizens when they are convicted for certain types of naturalization fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1425. These include knowing, unlawful procurement or attempts to procure naturalization, or documentary evidence of naturalization for any person. Like all criminal cases, the government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt[1].
Wartime Military Service (INA § 329(c))
Naturalization through wartime military service under § 329(a) may be revoked if the citizen was subsequently discharged under other than honorable conditions within a specified five-year period[1].
Cold War Provision (§ 340(a) Proviso)
A remnant of the Cold War but still valid law, naturalization may be revoked for refusing under specified circumstances to testify before a congressional committee on alleged subversive activities[1].
Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards
Given the precious nature of U.S. citizenship, the government must prove its case by “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence”. This burden is substantially identical with that required in criminal cases – proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Facts should be construed as far as is reasonably possible in favor of the citizen[1].
Steve Vladeck’s Constitutional Analysis
The Fundamental Constitutional Framework
Constitutional law scholar Steve Vladeck, writing in his “One First” newsletter on April 28, 2025, provides crucial context on the constitutional limitations governing denaturalization. Vladeck emphasizes that despite political rhetoric, the legal reality remains constrained by decades of Supreme Court precedent.
Key Constitutional Constraints Identified by Vladeck
Section 1481: Limited Grounds for Expatriation
Vladeck details that 8 U.S.C. § 1481 identifies only seven specific classes of activities that can subject citizens to loss of citizenship, most involving voluntary conduct demonstrating intent to surrender citizenship:
- Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state
- Taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state
- Military service for foreign states under specific circumstances
- Accepting foreign government employment with nationality acquisition
- Formal renunciation before diplomatic officers
- Written renunciation during wartime (with Attorney General approval)
- Committing treason or seditious acts (if convicted and with specific intent)
The Vance v. Terrazas Standard
Vladeck explains that the Supreme Court’s decision in Vance v. Terrazas established that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires the government to prove that a citizen specifically intended to surrender their U.S. citizenship, not merely that they voluntarily committed an expatriating act.
As Vladeck notes: “Thus, under Vance, it is effectively impossible to revoke citizenship as a punitive sanction simply for being convicted of a crime (to say nothing of merely being charged with one)”.
Denaturalization vs. Expatriation
Vladeck distinguishes between the two processes:
Denaturalization applies only to naturalized citizens and requires proof that citizenship was “illegally procured or . . . procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.”
Expatriation can apply to all citizens but requires meeting the demanding standards of Section 1481 and proving specific intent to relinquish citizenship.
Vladeck’s Assessment of Current Enforcement
Despite the administration’s expanded enforcement priorities, Vladeck concludes: “There is, simply, no easy, fast path to revoking any American’s citizenship without their consent—and there hasn’t been for decades”.
He emphasizes that meaningful judicial review requirements and constitutional protections create “significant statutory, constitutional, and practical obstacles” to mass denaturalization efforts.
The Supreme Court’s Maslenjak Decision: Materiality Requirements
Maslenjak v. United States: Relevant Facts
- Divna Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb, fled Bosnia during the civil war and entered the U.S. as a refugee in 2000.
- She obtained refugee status by claiming, under oath, that she feared persecution both because of her ethnicity and because her husband had evaded military service in the Bosnian Serb army.
- In 2004, Maslenjak applied for U.S. naturalization and answered “no” to questions about ever lying to immigration officials or providing false or misleading information for immigration benefits.
- She became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2007.
- In 2013, immigration officials discovered that Maslenjak’s husband had not evaded military service, but had actually served as an officer in the Bosnian Serb army, which was implicated in war crimes.
- Maslenjak was prosecuted and convicted in 2014 for making false statements on her naturalization application, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) and § 1015(a).
- The government argued that any false statement, material or not, could justify denaturalization. The trial court instructed the jury that Maslenjak could be convicted even if her false statements were not material to her citizenship approval.
- Her citizenship was revoked following her conviction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that only a material false statement—one that actually influenced the decision to grant citizenship—could support denaturalization.
In Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), the Supreme Court addressed a fundamental question about denaturalization: whether the government can revoke citizenship based on immaterial false statements made during the naturalization process.
Justice Kagan’s Unanimous Opinion
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for a unanimous Court, established crucial limitations on denaturalization that remain binding precedent:
“We hold that the Government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship. When the illegal act is a false statement, that means demonstrating that the defendant lied about facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, because they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts warranting that result.”
The Materiality Standard
The Court rejected the government’s argument that any false statement, regardless of materiality, could support denaturalization. Justice Kagan explained:
“Under the Government’s reading of §1425(a), a lie told in the naturalization process—even out of embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy—would always provide a basis for rescinding citizenship. The Government could thus take away on one day what it was required to give the day before.”
Two-Part Test for Misrepresentation Cases
The Maslenjak decision established a framework for cases involving false statements:
Direct Disqualification: If the misrepresented facts are themselves legally disqualifying for citizenship, the lie must have played a role in naturalization.
Investigation-Based Theory: When relying on the theory that lies threw investigators off a trail leading to disqualifying facts, the government must prove:
- The misrepresented fact was sufficiently relevant to prompt reasonable officials to undertake further investigation
- Such investigation “would predictably have disclosed” some legal disqualification
Constitutional Protection Maintained
Critically, Justice Kagan emphasized: “We have never read a statute to strip citizenship from someone who met the legal criteria for acquiring it. We will not start now”.
Procedural Framework and Due Process
Denaturalization Process
The denaturalization process is initiated by filing a complaint in U.S. district court alleging, “upon affidavit showing good cause,” that the defendant’s naturalization was either procured illegally or by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation. Jurisdiction is in the district court of the defendant’s current residence. Generally, the process begins with the USCIS making a recommendation to revoke citizenship and then usually the U.S. Attorney’s office would prosecute the case[1].
DOJ Guidelines for Case Selection
A Department of Justice circular letter lists factors to consider in determining whether to institute denaturalization proceedings, by looking at whether proceedings would result in the “betterment of the citizenship of the country”. Although the letter is over 100 years old, it indicates that proceedings should not be instituted merely to correct errors and irregularities in an individual’s naturalization. Where the naturalized citizen procured citizenship through willful and deliberate fraud, the letter states that denaturalization proceedings should not be considered if many years have passed since the judgment of naturalization, the individual has since been an exemplary citizen, and the individual possesses the necessary qualifications for citizenship[1].
Due Process Concerns in Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings
Civil Proceedings: Whereas naturalized citizens are provided notice and an opportunity to be heard when complaints are brought against them for illegal procurement or concealment and misrepresentation, there are significant due process limitations in civil denaturalization proceedings:
- No Right to Appointed Counsel: Unlike criminal cases, individuals facing denaturalization are not entitled to a government-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one
- Service of Process Issues: Since naturalized citizens aren’t required to keep addresses updated with the government, cases can proceed if service is made to the last known address, even if the person never receives notice
Criminal Proceedings: There is no required notice or right to be heard for revocation of citizenship after criminal convictions for fraudulent naturalization. Instead, courts have interpreted the statute as requiring automatic denaturalization after the conviction, regardless of whether lengthy periods of time transpire between conviction and revocation[1].
Potential Defenses to Denaturalization Proceedings
Complete Defense: Eligibility for Citizenship
In Maslenjak v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that qualification for citizenship is a complete defense to prosecution for knowingly procuring naturalization contrary to law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a). The Court explained that in both civil and criminal denaturalization proceedings, if a defendant proves that he was qualified for citizenship, he could not be denaturalized[1].
In U.S. v. Allouche, the Fifth Circuit held that a defendant’s qualification for citizenship—based upon grounds separate and apart from those which the government had charged defendant failed to meet—would be a complete defense to both criminal and civil denaturalization proceedings[1].
Materiality Defenses
Concealment or misrepresentation may only be the basis for revocation proceedings if they related to a material fact. In Kungys, the Supreme Court held that the test for materiality is whether the concealments or misrepresentations in the naturalization process have a “natural tendency to influence” the decision to grant naturalization[1].
Post-Maslenjak, the government must prove two ways the materiality requirement can be satisfied:
- Direct Disqualification: If the facts misrepresented are themselves disqualifying, there is an obvious causal link between the defendant’s lie and her procurement of citizenship
- Investigation-Based Theory: The government must show that the misrepresented fact was sufficiently relevant to prompt reasonable officials to undertake further investigation, and such investigation would predictably have disclosed some legal disqualification[1]
Truthfulness and Ambiguity Defenses
Defendants have successfully argued that questions asked on naturalization forms are ambiguous, and therefore their concealment or misrepresentation of certain facts was not willful for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. 1451(a). In Nowak and Maisenberg, the Supreme Court considered whether questions about anarchy or overthrow of government were ambiguous as applied to defendants who failed to disclose Communist Party membership[1].
Procedural Defenses
The Supreme Court in Schneiderman v. U.S. emphasized that the burden of proof for civil denaturalization proceedings is especially heavy “when the attack is made long after the time when the certificate of citizenship was granted and the citizen has meanwhile met his obligations and has committed no act of lawlessness”[1].
Statute of Limitations: The Third Circuit and Fifth Circuit have held that the federal catch-all statute of limitations is not a defense to a denaturalization proceeding because denaturalization serves as a remedy for fraudulently obtained citizenship as opposed to a penalty or forfeiture.
Laches: While generally ineffective, some circuits allow laches defenses where defendant can show prejudice by the government’s delay in bringing the suit[1].
Consequences of Denaturalization
Relation-Back Doctrine
Courts adjudicating denaturalization proceedings apply the “relation-back” doctrine under INA § 340(a), which provides that naturalization and the certificate of citizenship are revoked “as of the original date” of admission to citizenship. In other words, a person reverts to their pre-naturalization immigrant status for the time spanning conferment of citizenship and denaturalization[1].
However, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the relation-back does not apply to general deportation provisions, so deportable crimes committed after a fraudulently procured naturalization cannot be grounds for deportation after a citizen is denaturalized[1].
Impact on Derivative Citizens
Under INA § 340(d), derivatives may lose their citizenship if they “claimed” it through a parent or spouse, depending on why the parent was denaturalized, how the derivatives claimed the citizenship, and where they were when it happened:
Concealment or Misrepresentation: If the parents’ naturalization is revoked because of concealment or misrepresentation, any children who acquired or derived citizenship from that parent will lose citizenship, regardless of whether they are residing in the United States or abroad[1].
Illegal Procurement: Derivatives will not lose citizenship if the parent or spouse’s citizenship was revoked due to illegal procurement of naturalization[1].
Military/Subversive Activity: Derivatives may lose citizenship if the spouse or parent is denaturalized under presumptions for military discharge or subversive activities, but only if they were residing outside the United States at the time of the principal’s denaturalization[1].
Administrative vs. Judicial Denaturalization
Current Limitations on Administrative Action
A Ninth Circuit decision held that the INS only had the power to cancel certificates of naturalization in limited circumstances without affecting the citizenship status of those affected. The Court affirmed a preliminary injunction on administrative denaturalization, which became permanent in 2001. At this point in time, revocation of naturalization can only occur in federal courts. USCIS can only cancel the certification of naturalization, but cannot revoke the underlying status[1].
In 2017, the D.C. Circuit in Xia v. Tillerson clarified that administrative cancellation of a certificate of naturalization does not affect the underlying citizenship. The court noted that only the document itself, the certificate, is affected by such administrative cancellation[1].
Why Denaturalization Remains Extremely Difficult
Legal Standard Barriers
The “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” standard requires overwhelming proof, with courts interpreting ambiguities in favor of the citizen. This burden is substantially identical to the criminal beyond reasonable doubt standard despite being civil proceedings.
Materiality Requirements Post-Maslenjak
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the government must prove not just concealment, but that it was material to the naturalization decision—often difficult years after the fact.
Constitutional Protections
Meaningful judicial review requirements and due process protections create significant obstacles to mass denaturalization efforts.
Resource Constraints
Each case requires substantial investigative and prosecutorial resources. Despite the significant resources this administration is expending on these cases, in absolute terms the number of people who have had their citizenship stripped remains small. However, there are fears that the creation of the DOJ’s expanded enforcement priorities may result in many more people being denaturalized, and these efforts will have a chilling effect on the number of legal permanent residents applying for U.S. citizenship[1].
Conclusion
While the Trump administration has made denaturalization a high enforcement priority through the Shumate memo, the legal and constitutional framework severely constrains what can actually be accomplished. Steve Vladeck’s analysis proves prescient: despite policy preferences, constitutional requirements of individualized judicial review, specific intent standards, and the “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” burden of proof mean that denaturalization will continue to affect only a small number of cases involving serious misconduct.
The DOJ’s expanded procedural framework and priority categories represent a systematic approach to identifying potential cases, but they cannot overcome the fundamental constitutional and legal constraints established by the Supreme Court in cases like Maslenjak v. United States. For the vast majority of naturalized Americans, citizenship remains secure regardless of political rhetoric or enforcement priorities.
The statistical reality—moving from an average of eleven cases annually to dozens even with increased enforcement—demonstrates that denaturalization remains more significant as political messaging than practical immigration enforcement tool. The comprehensive legal framework, procedural safeguards, and constitutional protections ensure that denaturalization continues to be an extraordinary remedy reserved for the most egregious cases of fraud or misconduct.
Sources
[1] Immigrant Legal Resource Center, “Denaturalization and Revocation of Naturalization Practice Advisory,” February 2020
Sources
-
ILRC: Denaturalization and Revocation of Naturalization Practice Advisory (2020)
-
National Immigration Forum: Fact Sheet on Denaturalization
-
Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. ___ (2017) (Supreme Court opinion)
-
ILRC: Denaturalization and Recent Government Efforts (2018)
-
ILRC: Critical Action Needed (2024)
