Justice Department Files 40 Denaturalization Cases in Largest Modern Push to Strip Citizenship

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 officials describe as the largest single denaturalization effort in modern history. Federal prosecutors said the individuals targeted are accused of serious offenses, including money laundering, child sexual abuse, visa fraud, and tax evasion.

According to a department statement, the petitions were submitted between late August and early October, a compressed timeframe that officials touted as unprecedented. Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the filings as a national security imperative, saying the cases represent the largest denaturalization effort in modern American history and vowing to continue using the process under President Donald Trump's leadership.

The 40 individuals named in the complaints come from a diverse array of countries, including Mexico, Pakistan, China, and Sierra Leone. Prosecutors allege that each concealed material facts during their citizenship applications—typically criminal conduct that, if disclosed, would have disqualified them from naturalization. In most cases, the criminal convictions occurred after the individuals had already taken their oaths of citizenship.

Two of those targeted are additionally accused of espionage on behalf of China. The Justice Department contends that because this conduct occurred before they became citizens, the individuals lacked the "good moral character" required for naturalization and should never have been granted citizenship in the first place. That allegation elevates those cases from fraud-based denaturalization to national security matters, a category that historically has drawn intense scrutiny.

Denaturalization laws have existed in the United States for decades, but their application has been rare and typically reserved for the most egregious cases. After World War II, the government pursued dozens of citizens accused of concealing involvement in the Holocaust or committing war crimes. One frequently cited historical example is Emma Goldman, a Lithuanian-born anarchist and women's rights activist who was jailed in 1917 for antiwar activities before being stripped of her citizenship and deported to the Soviet Union.

Since the end of the Cold War, however, denaturalization proceedings have become exceedingly uncommon. The Trump administration's renewed emphasis on the tool represents a sharp departure from that norm. Top officials have explicitly linked denaturalization to the president's broader goal of conducting the largest deportation operation in U.S. history, viewing the revocation of citizenship as a legal pathway to removal.

Under current U.S. law, prosecutors may petition courts to strip citizenship from foreign-born individuals if they willfully concealed a "material fact" during the naturalization process—a fact that would have otherwise disqualified them. The burden of proof is high, and courts have historically interpreted the statute narrowly. Legal experts note that denaturalization is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one, which means defendants lack certain constitutional protections such as the right to a jury trial or appointed counsel.

Human rights organizations have pushed back forcefully against the expansion. Critics argue that widespread denaturalization could leave individuals stateless, particularly if their countries of origin refuse to accept them. Statelessness carries severe consequences, including the loss of travel documents, voting rights, and access to social services. Advocacy groups also warn that the practice could be weaponized against specific communities or political opponents.

Those concerns have been fueled by the administration's own rhetoric and actions. Last year, the White House indicated it would seek to denaturalize large numbers of Somali Americans following allegations of daycare fraud in Minnesota involving the Somali diaspora. Trump himself wrote at the time, "Send them back from where they came, Somalia, perhaps the worst, and most corrupt, country on earth," language that critics described as xenophobic and indicative of a broader targeting of immigrant communities.

The administration's denaturalization efforts have also extended to prominent political figures. Representative Andy Ogles, a Republican, has floated the possibility of revoking citizenship from New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who was born in Uganda. Trump has falsely suggested that Mamdani may be in the country illegally. At one point, Trump even raised the idea of withdrawing citizenship from tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, a close ally and adviser during his second administration, after the two men had a falling-out in 2025.

Beyond denaturalization, Trump has aggressively pursued ending birthright citizenship, which grants citizenship to virtually all children born on U.S. soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of diplomats and foreign military forces. Birthright citizenship is protected under the U.S. Constitution and cannot be revoked in the same manner as naturalized citizenship. In June, the Supreme Court struck down Trump's initial effort to dismantle birthright citizenship. Undeterred, the president issued a second executive order in August seeking to restrict how birthright citizenship is applied, and legal battles over the issue continue in lower courts.

The 40 cases announced Monday are likely to serve as a test of how far the administration can push denaturalization as a tool of immigration enforcement. Each case will proceed through federal courts, where judges will weigh whether the government has met the stringent legal standard for revocation. If successful, the individuals would lose their citizenship and face potential deportation to countries they may have left decades ago.

Immigration attorneys and civil liberties groups are expected to challenge many of the filings, arguing that the government is stretching the definition of "material fact" and improperly retroactively applying standards of moral character. They also contend that denaturalization should remain an extraordinary remedy, not a routine component of immigration policy.

The Justice Department's announcement has reignited a broader national debate over the meaning and permanence of American citizenship. For naturalized citizens, the cases raise unsettling questions about whether their status could be challenged years or decades after taking the oath. For the Trump administration, the filings represent a fulfillment of a campaign promise to crack down on immigration and crime—one that will now be tested in courtrooms across the country.