President Donald Trump has recently made headlines by threatening to revoke citizenship from various individuals, including prominent political opponents like comedian Rosie O’Donnell, former White House adviser Elon Musk, and New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. His remarks come amid increased efforts by his administration to pursue mass deportations, raising questions about the legality and implications of such actions.
On June 12, Trump publicly stated that he was considering stripping O’Donnell of her U.S. citizenship, claiming her presence was “not in the best interests of our Great Country” and labeling her as a “Threat to Humanity.” This assertion sparked considerable backlash, as legal experts pointed out that the President lacks the authority to revoke citizenship from individuals born in the United States, a right protected by the 14th Amendment.
Legal scholars emphasize that U.S.-born citizens, such as O’Donnell, cannot lose their citizenship due to political disagreements or personal disputes. Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, noted, “Once you have American citizenship, you have a constitutional entitlement to it. If you like your American citizenship, you can keep your American citizenship — and that’s with the Supreme Court’s guarantee.”
Trump’s threats extend beyond O’Donnell. He has also hinted at the possibility of pursuing denaturalization for Musk and Mamdani, both of whom became U.S. citizens through a legal process after being born outside the country. However, political opposition or personal feuds are not legitimate grounds for denaturalization, as clarified by Cassandra Burke Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. She reinforced that native-born U.S. citizens cannot have their citizenship stripped by the government under any circumstances.
In light of these controversies, it’s essential to understand what denaturalization entails. Unlike U.S.-born citizens, naturalized citizens can lose their citizenship under very specific conditions. The Trump administration has expressed a desire to initiate more denaturalization cases, as outlined in a June memo from the Justice Department that prioritizes cases involving national security threats, gang affiliations, and other significant concerns.
This memo does not grant the President the power to denaturalize individuals arbitrarily based on political ideology or personal conflicts. Instead, the process requires evidence of severe misconduct, such as immigration fraud or war crimes. As Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the Migration Policy Institute, notes, “Denaturalization is exceedingly rare and has occurred for people who concealed information of war crimes, Nazi membership, criminal histories, or immigration fraud.”
For naturalized citizens, the denaturalization process can take one of two routes. The first involves criminal charges for naturalization fraud, which means the individual gained citizenship under false pretenses. If convicted, citizenship is automatically revoked, and individuals are entitled to legal representation.
The second route to denaturalization is through a civil action, wherein the government claims that citizenship was “illegally procured” and that the individual did not meet the necessary eligibility requirements. This process does not afford the same constitutional protections, lacking a right to court-appointed representation and imposing a lower burden of proof.
While political discourse continues to intensify and divisions among public figures become more pronounced, the fundamental legal protections surrounding U.S. citizenship remain intact. As highlighted further by legal experts, the process of stripping an individual’s U.S. citizenship is not only a complex legal procedure but also one that necessitates a legitimate basis grounded in the law.
Therefore, any claims made by President Trump or others regarding the revocation of citizenship should be viewed through the lens of constitutional law and the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court.
In the case of O’Donnell, her longstanding adversarial relationship with Trump spans back to 2006, during which she has been vocal about her criticisms of his policies and character. This animosity has not since provided a foundation for the government to act against her citizenship.
Legal experts reiterate that political disagreement, no matter how heated or personal, has no bearing on an individual’s rights to citizenship as assured by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that U.S.-born individuals possess robust protections against involuntary loss of citizenship. As such, any assertion to the contrary lacks a sound legal basis and fails to enhance the discourse around citizenship and national identity, which is frequently complicated in the political arena.
In summary, while President Trump’s statements about stripping citizenship may rally support among his base, they ultimately reflect a misunderstanding of the law regarding citizenship rights and protections. Citizens born within the U.S. remain safeguarded by the Constitution, while naturalized citizens face a rigorous and well-defined process for denaturalization, typically reserved for grave offenses.
As the dialogue continues, it is crucial for all involved to recognize and respect the established legal frameworks that govern U.S. citizenship, regardless of personal or political motivations.
image source from：pbs
