Threats of denaturalization are the latest attack on immigrants — but they won’t stand up in court.

[link removed]

You might think that when you are a U.S. citizen, you cannot have that status taken away. You would be wrong, it turns out. And behind that fact is a long and often ugly history.

On Sunday, President Trump said that he would “absolutely” denaturalize American citizens if he could. It comes after a wave of harsh rhetoric directed toward immigrants after the tragic shooting of two National Guard members last week.

Yes, the words that the president says have been discounted. But there’s policy behind the rhetorical provocation.

Denaturalization is the process of stripping citizenship from someone who obtained it illegally, such as by not meeting the requirements or by committing fraud or lying during the application process. At first, government interpreted that standard loosely, leading to years of abuse.

As my colleagues Faiza Patel, Margy O’Herron, and Kendall Verhovek explain

[link removed]

:

More than 22,000 Americans lost their citizenship between 1907 and 1967 based on political affiliations, race, and gender, according to denaturalization scholar Patrick Weil

[link removed]

. President Woodrow Wilson’s administration began denaturalizing German- and Asian-born citizens during World War I, along with anarchists and people who spoke out against the war. During World War II, a push for denaturalization of naturalized citizens from Germany, Italy, and Japan intensified. A primary target included members of the pro-Nazi German-American Bund

[link removed]

for disloyalty and insufficient attachment

[link removed]

to the principles of the Constitution.

After the war, the Second Red Scare took hold of a country fearful of domestic communism amid its emergence abroad. Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin led witch hunts, with denaturalization often used as a tool against accused communists or sympathizers. Among those targets was Harry Bridges

[link removed]

, an Australian-born, nationally known labor leader accused of being a communist, who faced an ultimately unsuccessful

[link removed]

campaign to revoke his citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, not once, but twice.

As Weil puts it

[link removed]

, a process that was intended to redress fraud and illegality in the naturalization process became used to “expel from the body politic ‘un-American’ citizens.” But even during wartime, the Supreme Court responded, limiting its use.

Throughout the 20th century, the Court issued several rulings setting a high bar for denaturalization. In 1943, the Court struck down

[link removed]

a move to denaturalize Russian-born William Schneiderman over ties to the Communist Party, requiring a “heavy burden” for rescinding citizenship. And in 1946, the Court warned

[link removed]

against the use of denaturalization as a “ready instrument for political persecutions.” It’s why in recent decades, denaturalization attempts have been appropriately rare . . . until now.

Over the summer, Trump directed Justice Department lawyers to “maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings.” At the time, a spokesperson said that “denaturalization proceedings will only be pursued as permitted by law and supported by evidence against individuals who illegally procured or misrepresented facts in the naturalization process.” Trump’s parameters seem to be much broader. In his Thanksgiving Truth Social post, he said he would “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility.”

Among his targets? Trump has repeatedly suggested that he is open to denaturalizing New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). When asked about Elon Musk, he told the press

[link removed]

, “We’ll have to take a look.” It appears that crime isn’t so much a motivation as disloyalty; the law isn’t so much a motivation as impulse.

But we shouldn’t mistake impulse for foolishness.

It’s all part of a broader effort to target the rights of immigrants and redefine who is an American. That started on Inauguration Day with the effort to eliminate birthright citizenship, a right that is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. And it’s part of efforts to reverse what top administration officials have called a conspiracy to alter the makeup of the electorate. In an interview

[link removed]

, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Joseph Edlow, accused previous administrations of admitting immigrants to “make them all citizens and then spread them out to try to change demographics elsewhere in the country.” And on the campaign trail last year, Trump adviser Stephen Miller declared

[link removed]

, “America is for Americans and Americans only.”

Stripping citizens of their citizenship in the name of making the electorate more “American” is arguably one of the most un-American acts imaginable. More than a century ago, the Supreme Court held

[link removed]

that naturalized citizens are on the same footing as those born in the country, and for decades, the Supreme Court has made clear

[link removed]

that stripping citizens of their citizenship due to their views or expressions “would run counter to our traditions.”

We are a nation of immigrants and also a nation of laws. The courts must continue to ensure that those laws protect naturalized citizens from being punished for speaking out.





Trump’s Boat Strikes Demand Action

The U.S. military might be guilty of murdering civilians in international waters as part of the Trump administration’s military campaign — unauthorized by Congress — against what it has called “narcoterrorists.” The recent strikes on alleged drug boats “demand extraordinary public investigation into any wrongdoing,” Michael Waldman writes in The New York Times, calling on Congress to create a select committee to probe the potential misuse of the president’s war powers. Read more

[link removed]

2025 Election Spending Trends

Several state elections broke spending records this year. “It’s a sign that the costs of elections continue to rise even in state and local races, fueled by big money from all over the country,” Ian Vandewalker writes. At the same time, races such as New York City’s mayoral contest showed how public financing programs can fuel people-powered campaigns. Read more

[link removed]

Progress Toward Fairer Sentencing

Revised sentencing guidelines for federal crimes will help make drug sentencing and supervised release from prison fairer by advising judges to give greater weight to individual situations. The changes “continue a trend that reflects a smarter, more tailored approach to federal sentencing,” JC Hendrickson and Ram Subramanian write. They break down the rationale behind the amended guidelines and their benefits. Read more

[link removed]

DOJ Cuts Support for People Leaving Prison

Even as the federal government takes a step toward improving sentencing practices, it has undermined decades of bipartisan work to support people returning to their communities after incarceration. In April, the Justice Department cut some $40 million in grants aimed at helping people leaving prison and jail find work, stable housing, and other services that allow them to contribute to their communities and avoid returning to crime. “Policymakers should not turn their backs on that vital work,” Nicole Ndumele and Ames Grawert write. Read more

[link removed]





PODCAST

Does the Constitution Still Work?

[link removed]

Politics today can be defined by extreme dysfunction and polarization — but the framers accounted for a fractured society and designed the government specifically to handle moments like these. Yuval Levin discusses his book American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again

[link removed]

, which argues that the constitutional system is designed to compel us to find common ground. Watch or listen on YouTube

[link removed]

// Spotify

[link removed]

// Apple

[link removed]

// SUBSTACK

[link removed]





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: Bush v. Gore and the State of Elections

[link removed]

Tuesday, December 9, 2–3 p.m. ET



On election night in 2000, the networks called the presidential race prematurely for Al Gore, then retracted their calls, then called it prematurely for George W. Bush and retracted again. Ultimately, five Supreme Court justices — all appointed by Republican presidents — put an end to the recount in Florida, effectively declaring Bush the winner. The justices on the winning side warned that the ruling should not be cited as precedent. The reasoning flummoxed legal scholars, even those who agreed with the outcome.



Join us for a live virtual event to discuss the legacy of Bush v. Gore. Did the case change the relationship between Americans and their elections, and between elections and the courts? Was it merely a symptom of broader changes in American politics? Or was the decision a historical anomaly with no lasting impact on American law and politics? RSVP today

[link removed]

Want to keep up with Brennan Center events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Kareem Crayton on the fight over congressional maps // THE NEW YORK TIMES

[link removed]

Joseph Nunn on the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act // SALON

[link removed]

Eileen O’Connor on the Justice Department’s demands for voter information // NEVADA CURRENT

[link removed]

Faiza Patel on government efforts to target political dissent // READER SUPPORTED NEWS

[link removed]

Eric Petry on potential campaign finance violations by a Kentucky candidate // THE DAILY GAZETTE

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]