Foreign News
Over 25m at risk as U.S. targets naturalised citizens in sweeping denaturalisation push
A new directive issued by the United States (U.S) Department of Justice (DOJ) has triggered alarm among immigrant communities, as federal attorneys have been instructed to prioritise denaturalisation proceedings against naturalised citizens accused of obtaining U.S. citizenship fraudulently or committing certain criminal offences.
The DOJ memo, published on June 11, 2025, outlines a renewed civil enforcement initiative focused on revoking citizenship in cases where it was allegedly “illegally procured” or obtained through “willful misrepresentation or concealment of material facts.” The directive applies to more than 25 million naturalised U.S. citizens, based on data from the Migration Policy Institute as of 2023.
Denaturalisation is a rare but powerful legal tool allowing the government to strip individuals of their U.S. citizenship, typically through civil litigation in federal court. This new push represents a significant escalation in scope and priority, especially under a political climate where immigration enforcement is once again taking centre stage ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential race.
According to the DOJ, the focus will be on individuals deemed to pose threats to national security or public safety. Categories outlined in the memo include:
Individuals with terrorism ties, or engaged in espionage or illegal export of sensitive U.S. technology.
Persons involved in war crimes, torture, or human rights abuses, including former military officials from conflict zones.
Naturalised individuals who were members of violent gangs or drug cartels, or who committed serious sex crimes, human trafficking, or violent felonies prior to or after acquiring citizenship.
Those found guilty of financial crimes, such as PPP loan fraud, tax evasion, Medicare/Medicaid fraud, or identity theft.
Cases involving fraudulent applications, such as falsified identity documents, lying about criminal history, or bribing immigration officers.
DOJ officials argue that the directive is essential to maintaining the integrity of the U.S. naturalisation process and preventing individuals with harmful backgrounds from taking advantage of American citizenship.
“Denaturalisation ensures that the privileges of citizenship are not abused by individuals who were never entitled to them in the first place,” the memo states.
While the Biden administration had significantly scaled back the use of denaturalisation – filing fewer than a handful of cases annually – the current policy marks a sharp pivot toward a tougher stance reminiscent of former President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.
Under Trump, a special DOJ Denaturalization Section was established in 2020, targeting hundreds of individuals, although few cases led to revocation. The current resurgence suggests that denaturalisation is again being viewed as a viable tool in the wider immigration enforcement arsenal, even under the current administration — which faces increasing political pressure from both the right and centre to crack down on border and citizenship fraud.
Analysts warn that this directive could have far-reaching implications, especially if misapplied or interpreted broadly.
“Even legitimate naturalised citizens may now feel insecure,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a professor of immigration law. “Once you open the door to revoking citizenship outside of extreme cases, you introduce fear and uncertainty into the immigrant community.”
Civil rights groups are also raising red flags about due process. In civil denaturalisation cases, individuals are not entitled to court-appointed lawyers, unlike in criminal proceedings. This puts low-income immigrants at a disadvantage when facing complex legal battles that could cost them their citizenship, deport them, and separate them from their families.
This directive follows a string of recent immigration-related rulings. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2025 overturned lower court rulings that had blocked former President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship. While the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, it cleared the way for future administrations to potentially test and implement such policies – a move that analysts view as emboldening hardline immigration hawks.
The combination of a revived denaturalisation programme and legal ambiguity around birthright citizenship raises profound questions about citizenship security in the United States, long considered permanent and irrevocable except in extreme cases.
For now, civil rights advocates are urging naturalised citizens to ensure their immigration paperwork is in order and to seek legal advice if they have past criminal issues, even those believed to be expunged. Some worry that minor legal infractions or procedural missteps during the naturalisation process could be weaponised under the new framework.
While the DOJ maintains that its focus is on serious criminals and national security threats, the memo’s broad language has raised concerns of potential overreach.
