USA: Trump administration attempts to revoke citizenship of 17 naturalized citizens.

US Department of Justice launches unprecedented offensive to denaturalize citizens.

In a legal maneuver unprecedented in recent American history, the United States Department of Justice announced on Monday (8) that it is taking legal action to revoke the citizenship of 17 naturalized citizens. The initiative, conducted under the Trump administration, represents one of the most aggressive attacks against naturalization seen in recent decades and is provoking intense legal, political and humanitarian debate across the country.

The process of denaturalization—that is, the formal revocation of American citizenship granted to a foreign individual—is historically rare and surrounded by rigorous legal requirements. Until recently, cases that reached this stage mostly involved war criminals or people accused of serious immigration fraud. The scope and pace of this new offensive are drawing the attention of constitutional law experts across the country.

What is behind the measure?

According to information released by Reuters and confirmed by outlets such as CNN and DW, the Department of Justice alleges irregularities in the naturalization processes of the 17 affected individuals. The White House has not publicly detailed the specific criteria used to select these individuals, fueling suspicions of political motivation from civil rights groups.

Denaturalization, when it occurs, is a civil—not criminal—process initiated by the federal government before a court. For it to be successful, the state needs to prove that the naturalization was obtained illegally or fraudulently, or that the citizen concealed relevant information during the process. This is a high evidentiary standard, and historically, courts have been cautious in applying such a measure.

Historical context: an almost forgotten practice

Mass denaturalization is not something the United States practices frequently. After World War II, the country did revoke the citizenship of Nazi collaborators who had concealed their crimes to enter American territory—cases that generated important jurisprudence on the limits of the process. Since then, the practice has been used very sparingly.

Historical data from the Department of Justice itself indicates that, between 1990 and 2017, fewer than 150 denaturalization cases were successfully concluded in the US. In 2020, under the first Trump administration, the government even created a specific unit to investigate possible fraud in naturalizations—an initiative that generated criticism but resulted in few concrete cases. The new round of 17 simultaneous processes, therefore, significantly breaks with the historical pattern.

Legal reactions and implications

Civil rights organizations, such as the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), have already spoken out against the measure, warning of the risk that it could be used as an instrument of intimidation against immigrant communities. Lawyers specializing in immigration law point out that the mere threat of denaturalization can coerce naturalized citizens into avoiding the full exercise of their rights, including the right to political expression.

From a constitutional standpoint, the issue is equally complex. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship to all those born or naturalized in the United States—and the Supreme Court, in previous rulings, has limited the government's power to revoke that status without due process. The 17 cases currently pending are expected to face intense judicial scrutiny.

Political and social impact

The measure comes at a time of heightened immigration debate in the US. Since Donald Trump's return to the presidency, the federal government has adopted a series of restrictive immigration policies, including mass deportations, visa reviews, and stricter requirements for asylum applications. The attempt at large-scale denaturalization is seen by analysts as a logical extension of this agenda.

For the 17 people directly affected, the practical consequences of a potential loss of citizenship would be devastating: in addition to losing the right to vote and to work freely in the country, they would be subject to deportation to nations that, in many cases, they may have left decades ago. Entire families could be separated, including spouses and children born on American soil.

• Right to vote: Naturalized citizens who lose that status are barred from participating in elections.
• Work and benefits: The revocation of citizenship eliminates access to a range of labor and social security rights.
• Risk of deportation: Without citizenship and without other valid legal status, the individual may be expelled from the country.
• Family impact: Children born in the U.S. retain citizenship, but their parents may be deported.

The debate is only just beginning.

The Justice Department's announcement certainly won't be the end of this story. The cases will be tried individually in federal courts, and it's likely that at least some of them will reach higher courts, potentially including the Supreme Court. The legal battle promises to be long, expensive, and politically explosive.

Meanwhile, the issue reignites a fundamental discussion about what it means to be an American citizen — and to what extent that status can be considered permanent or revocable. For millions of naturalized citizens who have built their lives in the United States, the answer to this question has never seemed more urgent.