WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 6: The Department of Justice logo is displayed before U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives for a news conference at the Department of Justice on May 6, 2025 in Washington, DC. The Justice Department along with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Mexico are set to announce that they have completed an operation targeting a large drug trafficking organization that has been dealing fentanyl and other illicit narcotics. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced a strategic shift to prioritize cases that could lead to the revocation of U.S. citizenship for certain naturalized citizens. This move, outlined in a memo dated June 11, grants district attorneys broader discretion in pursuing denaturalization, particularly targeting those who have committed specific crimes. The decision could impact nearly 25 million naturalized citizens, according to 2023 data.
In a recent case that underscores this new focus, a judge ordered the denaturalization of Elliott Duke, a military veteran originally from the U.K., who was convicted of distributing child sexual abuse material. Duke, who uses they/them pronouns, admitted to committing these crimes before becoming a U.S. citizen.
Historical Context and Legal Framework
Denaturalization is not a new tactic. It was notably used during the McCarthy era in the late 1940s and early 1950s and expanded during the Obama administration. The Trump administration further intensified these efforts, seeking to redefine who is eligible to become or remain a U.S. citizen. Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate emphasized in the memo that denaturalization will be a top priority for the DOJ’s civil rights division.
“The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence,” Shumate stated.
This initiative is part of a broader attempt by the Trump administration to reshape the U.S. immigration system, including efforts to end birthright citizenship and reduce refugee programs. However, legal experts have raised significant constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the due process rights of those targeted for denaturalization.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
The DOJ intends to pursue denaturalization through civil litigation, a process that does not guarantee the right to an attorney and requires a lower burden of proof than criminal proceedings. Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, argues that this approach infringes on the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
“Stripping Americans of citizenship through civil litigation violates due process,” Robertson said.
Conversely, Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation supports the DOJ’s efforts, arguing that it protects the nation from criminals and terrorists. He dismisses due process concerns, stating that individuals can hire their own legal representation.
Despite these assurances, the DOJ and the Trump White House have declined to comment on the potential implications for families of naturalized citizens, particularly children whose citizenship could be jeopardized by a parent’s denaturalization.
Expanding Criteria and Implications
The DOJ’s memo outlines an expanded list of crimes that could lead to denaturalization, including national security violations and fraud against government programs. Sameera Hafiz, policy director of the Immigration Legal Resource Center, expressed alarm at the potential for creating a “second class” of U.S. citizens, where naturalized individuals remain at risk.
“It is kind of, in a way, trying to create a second class of U.S. citizens,” Hafiz said.
Critics also point to the memo’s vague language, granting U.S. attorneys broad discretion in determining denaturalization cases. Steve Lubet, professor emeritus at Northwestern University, warns that such discretion could lead to arbitrary targeting of individuals.
“Many of the categories are so vague as to be meaningless,” Lubet noted.
Von Spakovsky argues that any abuse of the privilege of citizenship should lead to revocation, regardless of when the misconduct occurred. However, Lubet and others caution against the potential ripple effects on families, particularly children who may lose their derived citizenship.
Case Study: Elliott Duke
The case of Elliott Duke illustrates the complexities and potential consequences of the DOJ’s denaturalization efforts. Duke, who became a U.S. citizen in 2013, was convicted of distributing child sexual abuse material, a crime committed before their naturalization. The DOJ’s legal action against Duke highlights the administration’s aggressive stance on denaturalization.
Laura Bingham, executive director of the Temple University Institute for Law Innovation and Technology, warns that this approach sets a dangerous precedent by reopening questions of citizenship for individuals who have already been naturalized.
“Citizenship is not supposed to be something that you can continuously open up for some people, and you can’t for others,” Bingham stated.
Duke now faces the challenge of appealing the decision while grappling with the implications of being effectively stateless.
Denaturalization in Historical Perspective
Historically, denaturalization was wielded as a political tool during the McCarthy era, with thousands of cases filed annually. A 1967 Supreme Court ruling curtailed this practice, deeming it inconsistent with democratic principles. However, the Obama administration revived denaturalization efforts through initiatives like Operation Janus, which sought to identify cases of naturalization fraud.
Despite concerns, Robertson remains skeptical about the number of cases that fit the DOJ’s criteria, suggesting that the focus may shift to individuals without serious infractions.
“If they’re really intending maximal enforcement, I think what they’re going to end up doing is focusing on people who have not committed any serious infraction,” Robertson said.
The DOJ’s denaturalization efforts, while controversial, represent a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy, with potential long-term implications for naturalized citizens and their families.
