TACO TRUMP ORDER Justice Department To Launch Major Crackdown on Naturalized Citizens.

The DOJ, under Trump, prioritizes denaturalization as a top enforcement goal, expanding criteria, using civil proceedings with fewer protections, and putting millions of naturalized Americans at risk.

The Justice Department recently launched an unprecedented campaign targeting thousands of naturalized American citizens for potential denaturalization. A newly issued internal memo explicitly prioritizes stripping citizenship from naturalized Americans, marking a significant expansion of Trump DOJ denaturalization policy. Previously considered an exceptional measure, denaturalization is increasingly becoming a standard enforcement tool, potentially placing millions of naturalized U.S. citizens at risk.

Furthermore, this policy shift grants U.S. attorneys broader discretion to pursue cases against immigrants who obtained citizenship years or even decades ago. Civil liberties and denaturalization concerns have mounted as legal experts point to the lower burden of proof required in civil proceedings compared to criminal cases. The Trump administration targets naturalized Americans through multiple pathways, including an expanded set of criteria for revoking citizenship that now encompasses vaguely defined categories related to fraud, criminal activity, and national security concerns.

DOJ Prioritizes Denaturalization in New Memo

On June 11, 2025, Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate issued a comprehensive memorandum to all Department of Justice Civil Division employees establishing new enforcement priorities 1. The document notably positions denaturalization as one of the agency’s top five civil enforcement priorities, alongside combating discriminatory practices, ending antisemitism, protecting women and children, and ending “sanctuary” jurisdictions 2.

Memo outlines top five civil enforcement priorities

The Justice Department’s memo represents a marked shift in immigration enforcement strategy. According to the document, “The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence” 2. This directive signals a substantial expansion of denaturalization efforts beyond what was pursued during the previous administration.

Prior to this memo, denaturalization cases were rare occurrences in the American legal system. Data shows the government pursued denaturalization at remarkably low rates, averaging only 11 cases annually from 1990-2017 3. Nevertheless, these numbers increased dramatically during Trump’s first term, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services indicating in 2018 that it intended to refer approximately 1,600 cases to the DOJ for prosecution 3.

Naturalized citizens with criminal records targeted

The memorandum explicitly outlines ten categories of priority cases for denaturalization. Among these, several focus directly on naturalized citizens with criminal histories or alleged criminal activities 2. The priorities include individuals who:

• Pose potential dangers to national security
• Engaged in torture, war crimes, or human rights violations
• Are affiliated with criminal gangs or transnational organizations
• Committed felonies not disclosed during naturalization
• Perpetrated human trafficking, sex offenses, or violent crimes
• Engaged in financial fraud against the United States
• Committed fraud against private individuals or corporations 4

Notably, the directive does not clearly indicate if these categories are listed in order of priority 4. Legal experts have raised concerns that some categories are exceptionally broad and could potentially include individuals with mere misdemeanor convictions 2.

U.S. attorneys granted broader discretion

Perhaps most significantly, the memo grants U.S. attorneys considerable latitude in determining which cases to pursue. Beyond the specifically enumerated categories, the guidance allows for denaturalization proceedings against “any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue” 2.

“These categories do not limit the Civil Division from pursuing any particular case,” the memo states, adding that priorities can include cases outside the specified categories as determined appropriate 2. Immigration attorney Rosanna Berardi highlighted the significance of this shift, noting: “The memo clearly signals that DOJ is going to pursue more of these cases, and not just against terrorists or war criminals, even cases involving undisclosed criminal records or procedural errors during naturalization are now on the radar” 3.

Additionally, the memo does not stipulate that the criminal conduct must have predated naturalization and been undisclosed during the citizenship process. As a result, the Division might potentially target individuals who committed crimes after becoming citizens, provided some other basis exists to contend that citizenship was procured unlawfully 2.

Steve Lubet, professor emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, observed that the language appears to grant the federal government “wide discretion” in deciding whom to target 3.

DOJ Expands Criteria for Revoking Citizenship

Under Brett Shumate’s leadership, the Civil Division has substantially broadened the grounds for denaturalization. The June 11 memo expands criteria far beyond the traditionally narrow focus on war criminals and terrorists to encompass a wide range of activities never before considered grounds for citizenship revocation.

New categories include fraud, trafficking, and national security

While maintaining traditional denaturalization priorities focused on national security threats and human rights violators, the Justice Department has now created multiple new categories for targeting naturalized citizens. The expanded criteria consist of ten distinct priority categories, including:

• Individuals connected to “criminal gangs, transnational organizations, and drug cartels” 5
• Those who committed undisclosed felonies during naturalization 6
• Perpetrators of “human trafficking, sex offenses, or violent crimes” 6
• People accused of financial fraud against government programs like PPP loans and Medicare 7
• Citizens who allegedly committed fraud against private individuals or corporations 8

Perhaps most concerning, the memo includes a catch-all category for “any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue” 6. This essentially grants officials unprecedented discretion to target virtually any naturalized citizen they deem worthy of investigation.

Civil litigation preferred over criminal prosecution

Throughout the memo, the Justice Department clearly indicates its preference for pursuing denaturalization through civil rather than criminal proceedings. This strategic choice offers several distinct advantages for prosecutors while disadvantaging defendants.

In civil denaturalization cases, unlike criminal proceedings, defendants have no right to government-appointed counsel 4. Consequently, many naturalized citizens facing these complex legal challenges must either pay for private representation or navigate the system alone.

Civil proceedings also operate under a substantially lower burden of proof. Instead of the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases, civil denaturalization requires only “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” 7. Moreover, civil denaturalization cases have no statute of limitations 9, meaning actions from decades ago can become grounds for citizenship revocation.

Experts warn of vague and broad definitions

Legal scholars and immigration attorneys have voiced serious concerns about the expansive nature of these new criteria. Law professor Cassandra Robertson believes that pursuing denaturalization through civil litigation violates due process rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment 3.

Other experts point to the deliberately vague wording of many categories. Steve Lubet from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law notes that “many of the categories are so vague as to be meaningless” 3. Similarly, Sameera Hafiz, policy director of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, describes the expansion as “very shocking and very concerning” 3.

In essence, this policy shift creates what many see as a two-tiered citizenship system. As one legal analysis noted, “Native-born Americans who commit tax fraud face fines, penalties, and potential imprisonment. Naturalized Americans face these same consequences, plus the loss of their citizenship” 7.

The memo’s implementation could particularly affect those who made minor or unintentional mistakes during naturalization. One example is the broad question “Have you ever committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit, a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?” which appears on naturalization applications 6. Given the memo’s expanded criteria, even forgotten tax forms or unreported tip income could potentially become grounds for losing citizenship years after naturalization 7.

How the Denaturalization Process Works

Denaturalization proceedings operate through two distinct legal pathways, with the Justice Department increasingly favoring civil procedures that offer fewer protections for defendants facing citizenship revocation.

Civil vs. criminal denaturalization explained

Denaturalization can occur through either civil or criminal proceedings, each with significantly different legal standards and implications. Unlike most immigration matters handled administratively by USCIS, denaturalization can only occur in federal court 1.

For criminal denaturalization, the government must prove that an individual knowingly committed naturalization fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1425 6. Following a Supreme Court ruling in 2017, only illegal acts that played a role in obtaining citizenship can lead to criminal denaturalization 6. Criminal cases carry a 10-year statute of limitations, offering a timeframe beyond which naturalized citizens cannot be prosecuted 6.

In contrast, civil denaturalization involves the Justice Department filing a lawsuit in federal district court alleging either illegal procurement of citizenship or concealment of material facts during the naturalization process 1. Civil cases have no statute of limitations, meaning naturalized citizens remain vulnerable throughout their lifetime 10.

Lower burden of proof in civil cases

One crucial distinction between these pathways concerns the evidentiary standards required. For criminal cases, prosecutors must prove their case “beyond a reasonable doubt” – the highest legal standard in American jurisprudence 6.

However, in civil denaturalization proceedings, the government faces a substantially lower threshold, needing only to provide “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt” 1. This standard, although higher than typical civil litigation requirements, remains considerably less demanding than criminal proof standards 11.

The 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Maslenjak v. United States established that “small omissions and minor lies” that did not influence citizenship decisions should not trigger denaturalization 6. Nonetheless, this protection applies primarily to criminal cases, offering limited safeguards in civil proceedings.

No right to government-appointed attorney

Perhaps most concerning for naturalized citizens facing denaturalization, individuals in civil proceedings have no constitutional right to government-appointed legal counsel 3. This stands in stark contrast to criminal denaturalization cases, where defendants are entitled to an attorney 10.

The practical implications are profound – naturalized citizens must either afford private legal representation or navigate complex federal court proceedings alone 4. As law professor Cassandra Robertson notes, this lack of representation in civil denaturalization proceedings raises serious due process concerns and potentially violates 14th Amendment protections 3.

Heritage Foundation legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky dismisses these concerns, arguing: “Nothing prevents that alien from hiring their own lawyer to represent them. They are not entitled to have the government — and thus the American taxpayer — pay for their lawyer” 3.

Following successful denaturalization, individuals revert to their previous immigration status 6. For many, this means becoming permanent residents again, though they may subsequently face deportation proceedings, especially if the grounds for denaturalization involved criminal activity 12.

Legal Experts Warn of Due Process Violations

Constitutional scholars have raised alarming concerns about the Justice Department’s expanded denaturalization efforts, pointing to fundamental violations of due process rights guaranteed to all citizens.

Concerns over 14th Amendment protections

The 14th Amendment explicitly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens” and cannot be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” 13. Legal experts assert that civil denaturalization proceedings fundamentally undermine these constitutional guarantees.

Professor Cassandra Robertson of Case Western Reserve University argues that “stripping Americans of citizenship through civil litigation violates substantive and procedural due process and infringes on the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment” 14. This critique focuses primarily on how civil proceedings fail to provide adequate safeguards for what the Supreme Court has called “the right to have rights” 15.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has issued a formal condemnation, stating that the DOJ directive “raises serious Fourteenth Amendment concerns” 16. First and foremost, critics warn that denaturalization through civil proceedings creates an unconstitutional two-tier system of citizenship.

Potential for lifelong vulnerability of naturalized citizens

Perhaps most troubling, naturalized Americans face perpetual uncertainty about their status since civil denaturalization has no statute of limitations. Approximately 24.5 million naturalized Americans now live with the possibility that minor mistakes or unintentional omissions could jeopardize their citizenship 6.

“This creates a system where naturalized citizens face ongoing vulnerability that can last their entire lives, potentially chilling their full participation in American democracy,” warn law professors studying citizenship 15. Indeed, the vague wording of naturalization application questions, such as “Have you ever committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit, a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?” leaves room for broad interpretation 6.

One troubling case involved Norma Borgono, a 63-year-old grandmother who faced denaturalization for not disclosing her inadvertent role in a fraud scheme where she prepared paperwork for her boss who committed fraud—even though she was not charged with any crime when applying for citizenship 6.

Impact on children and derivative citizenship

Beyond the impact on naturalized citizens themselves, legal experts highlight the devastating effects on children. Professor Steve Lubet notes “the ripple effect that this would have on children who were naturalized through their parents” 3.

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations, “the citizenship of a spouse or child who became a U.S. citizen through the naturalization of his or her parent or spouse is not lost if the revocation was based on illegal procurement of naturalization” 17. Generally, children may lose their citizenship if their parent’s citizenship is revoked because of “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation” 17.

Disturbingly, when questioned about the impact on children, “The DOJ didn’t respond to questions about how this could impact children of naturalized parents” 3.

Historical Use of Denaturalization Offers Cautionary Lessons

The evolution of denaturalization policies offers crucial historical context for understanding current Justice Department initiatives. Throughout American history, these powers have periodically expanded during periods of political tension.

McCarthy-era denaturalization surge

Denaturalization dramatically expanded during the Red Scare of the 1940s and 1950s. Between 1907 and 1967, over 22,000 Americans lost their citizenship 15, many targeted for political beliefs. This period saw denaturalization weaponized against suspected communists, anarchists, labor leaders, and anyone deemed “un-American” 18. The 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk finally curtailed this practice, establishing that citizenship could not be revoked without consent except in fraud cases 15.

Operation Janus under Obama administration

Initially launched in 2010, Operation Janus identified cases where individuals with deportation orders potentially naturalized under different identities 2. The program emerged after officials discovered approximately 315,000 cases with missing digital fingerprint records 19. By 2016, the Department of Homeland Security flagged 858 cases for further review 6. Yet despite these investigations, no denaturalizations occurred under Obama 20.

Trump’s first term expansion of denaturalization

After 2017, denaturalization efforts intensified markedly. The Justice Department created a dedicated Denaturalization Section 14, investigated over 700,000 naturalized citizens 21, and increased case referrals by 600% 2. This first-term expansion resulted in approximately 25 cases annually 22, primarily pursued through civil rather than criminal proceedings 23.

Conclusion

The Justice Department’s aggressive expansion of denaturalization powers marks a watershed moment for millions of naturalized Americans. Through this new policy, citizenship status previously considered secure now exists under an unprecedented cloud of vulnerability. Certainly, the shift from rarely pursuing denaturalization cases to establishing it as a top five enforcement priority signals a fundamental change in how America views its naturalized citizens.

Most concerning, the transition toward civil rather than criminal proceedings deliberately circumvents crucial protections typically afforded defendants. Without government-appointed counsel and facing a lower burden of proof, naturalized citizens must navigate complex legal challenges with limited resources. Additionally, the absence of any statute of limitations creates lifelong vulnerability, regardless of how long someone has been an American citizen.

The vague wording found throughout the DOJ memo consequently grants extraordinary discretion to officials determining which naturalized citizens to target. Although originally focused on serious threats like war criminals and terrorists, denaturalization now potentially applies to minor infractions or even unintentional omissions during the application process. Therefore, this two-tiered citizenship system places naturalized Americans in a perpetually precarious position.

Historical precedents during the McCarthy era offer a stark warning about potential abuses. Despite Supreme Court rulings that established citizenship as a fundamental right, these new policies effectively undermine those protections. Meanwhile, children who derived citizenship through their parents face uncertain futures as their status could likewise be jeopardized through no fault of their own.

This dramatic expansion of government power thus represents a profound shift in American citizenship doctrine. For 24.5 million naturalized citizens, what once seemed a permanent status has transformed into a conditional privilege, potentially revocable decades after the naturalization ceremony. The constitutional implications remain significant as these policies challenge fundamental principles of due process and equal protection enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, these changes redefine what it means to be an American citizen, creating distinct categories of membership in our national community based solely on one’s path to citizenship.

References

[1] – https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-1
[2] – https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/denaturalization_pa.pdf
[3] – https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5445398/denaturalization-trump-immigration-enforcement
[4] – https://federal-lawyer.com/criminal-law/denaturalization-attorney/foreign-born-citizens/
[5] – https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/04/justice-denaturalization-citizens-crimes/
[6] – https://immigrationforum.org/article/denaturalization-fact-sheet/
[7] – https://www.imidaily.com/north-america/doj-now-using-past-tax-mistakes-to-strip-us-citizenship/
[8] – https://www.justice.gov/civil/media/1404046/dl?inline
[9] – https://mahometdaily.com/doj-memo-signals-massive-expansion-of-citizenship-revocation/
[10] – https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2025/us-government-revoke-your-citizenship-what-to-know-about-denaturalization/
[11] – https://www.kktplaw.com/blog/2024/march/what-is-the-burden-of-proof-in-u-s-denaturalizat/
[12] – https://federal-lawyer.com/criminal-law/denaturalization-attorney/what-to-do/
[13] – https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
[14] – https://www.aila.org/featured-issue-denaturalization
[15] – https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/07/18/trump-efforts-to-strip-citizenship-from-naturalized-americans-likely-violate-constitutional-rights/
[16] – https://www.nacdl.org/newsrelease/News-Release-~-DOJ-Denaturalization-Memo
[17] – https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-3
[18] – https://www.stevelopezlaw.com/the-history-of-denaturalization-in-the-united-states
[19] – https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-first-denaturalization-result-operation-janus
[20] – https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2164&context=hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly
[21] – https://www.vox.com/politics/418809/trump-immigration-denaturalization-citizenship-mamdani-musk
[22] – https://www.ilrc.org/community-resources/faqs-how-denaturalization-works
[23] – https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/1249/

TrumpDOJDenaturalizationCrackdown, CivilDenaturalizationProcess, 14thAmendmentCitizenshipRights, DOJMemoJune2025, TwoTierCitizenshipSystem, NaturalizedCitizenshipRisk, OperationJanusHistory, DueProcessViolationsInDenaturalization, McCarthyEraDenaturalizationParallels, CitizenshipRevocationCriteriaExpansion

#TrumpDenaturalization, #DOJCitizenshipRevocation, #CivilDenaturalization, #NaturalizedCitizenshipRisk, #14thAmendmentRights, #ImmigrationEnforcement, #CitizenshipDueProcess, #McCarthyEraParallels, #OperationJanus, #TwoTierCitizenship,