Justice Department Files 40 Denaturalization Cases in Trump's Widest Citizenship Stripping Push

The United States Department of Justice announced on Monday that it has filed 40 new lawsuits seeking to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans, marking what federal prosecutors describe as the largest single batch of denaturalization petitions in modern American history. The cases, submitted between late August and early October, target individuals accused of offenses including money laundering, child sexual abuse, visa fraud, and tax evasion, according to a department statement.

Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the filings as a cornerstone of the administration's immigration enforcement strategy. "Today's announcement marks the largest denaturalization effort in modern history," Blanche said in the statement. "Under President Trump's leadership, the Department of Justice will continue to employ the denaturalization process to maintain our national security and protect the American people." The language reflects a deliberate escalation in how the executive branch characterizes civil denaturalization proceedings, which are formally handled in federal court but are increasingly presented as an extension of national security policy.

The 40 individuals named in the filings come from a diverse set of countries, including Mexico, Pakistan, China, and Sierra Leone. According to the Justice Department, each is accused of concealing criminal conduct or other material facts during the citizenship application process. In most cases, the underlying criminal convictions occurred after the individuals had already taken their oath of citizenship—a legal nuance that makes the government's burden more complex, since denaturalization generally requires proof that the person unlawfully procured citizenship at the time it was granted.

Two of the cases involve allegations of espionage on behalf of China. Prosecutors argue that because those crimes were committed before the individuals became citizens, the accused lacked "good moral character"—a statutory requirement for naturalization—and therefore should never have been granted citizenship in the first place. This theory, if accepted by courts, could significantly broaden the grounds on which citizenship can be revoked years or even decades after it was conferred.

Denaturalization itself is a rarely used legal tool that has existed in U.S. law for decades. Historically, it was reserved for the most serious offenses, particularly cases involving concealment of Nazi-era crimes or participation in war crimes. After World War II, the U.S. government moved to strip citizenship from dozens of individuals accused of hiding involvement in the Holocaust. The most infamous historical example, however, predates that era: Emma Goldman, a Lithuanian-born anarchist and women's rights activist, was jailed in 1917 for antiwar activities, then denaturalized and deported to the Soviet Union.

The use of denaturalization declined sharply after the Cold War, as courts and prosecutors grew wary of the tool's potential for abuse and the significant resources required to litigate each case. Civil denaturalization proceedings are costly, fact-intensive, and often take years to resolve. The Trump administration's decision to pursue 40 cases in roughly six weeks represents a sharp departure from that post-Cold War restraint and signals a willingness to invest substantial institutional resources in this area.

Under current U.S. law, prosecutors may ask a federal court to revoke citizenship if the person willfully concealed a "material fact" during the naturalization process—a fact that, had it been disclosed, would have disqualified them from becoming a citizen. The statute is civil rather than criminal, meaning the government's burden of proof is lower than in a criminal trial and defendants are not entitled to the same procedural protections, including the right to government-appointed counsel.

The administration's broader immigration agenda provides essential context for Monday's announcement. Trump has repeatedly pledged to conduct the largest deportation operation in American history, and denaturalization offers a legal pathway to remove individuals who otherwise could not be deported because of their citizenship status. By stripping citizenship first, the government can then initiate removal proceedings—a two-step process that administration officials view as a force multiplier for deportation efforts.

Human rights organizations have pushed back forcefully against the expansion. Critics argue that widespread denaturalization risks rendering individuals stateless, particularly if their country of origin refuses to accept them or has ceased to exist. They also warn that the threat of losing citizenship can be weaponized against political opponents, journalists, and disfavored minority groups. Legal scholars note that the Supreme Court has historically placed limits on denaturalization, requiring clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that citizenship was illegally procured—a standard that remains difficult for the government to meet.

Those concerns have been reinforced by the administration's public statements and actions over the past year. In late 2025, the White House signaled it would seek to denaturalize large numbers of Somali Americans after fraud allegations emerged in Minnesota involving daycare programs and the Somali diaspora. Trump commented at the time: "Send them back from where they came, Somalia, perhaps the worst, and most corrupt, country on earth." The remark drew condemnation from civil rights groups, who noted that it appeared to target an entire national-origin community rather than specific individuals accused of wrongdoing.

Republican officials have also floated denaturalization against figures seen as political adversaries. Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee has suggested revoking the citizenship of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who was born in Uganda but naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Trump himself has falsely claimed that Mamdani might be in the country illegally. In a separate episode, Trump floated the idea of withdrawing citizenship from Elon Musk—a close ally and adviser during his second administration—after the two had a falling out in 2025. While neither suggestion has resulted in formal legal action, critics say they demonstrate how denaturalization rhetoric can be used as a political weapon.

The administration's citizenship agenda extends beyond naturalized Americans. Trump has repeatedly sought to dismantle birthright citizenship, the constitutional principle that grants citizenship to virtually all children born on U.S. soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of diplomats and foreign military forces. In June, the Supreme Court struck down the administration's first attempt to roll back birthright citizenship. But legal battles have continued after Trump issued a second executive order in August 2026 seeking to restrict how birthright citizenship is applied.

Birthright citizenship is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment and cannot be revoked in the same manner as naturalized citizenship, which is an administrative status subject to civil challenge. That distinction is central to understanding the scope of the Justice Department's latest effort. While the 40 cases announced Monday represent the most aggressive use of denaturalization in recent memory, they operate within a narrow legal channel that remains subject to judicial review and constitutional limits. Whether courts will endorse the administration's expansive interpretation of "good moral character" and "material fact" remains an open question—one with profound implications for millions of naturalized Americans.