Blog by Bernardo Carvalho de Mello *
In July 2025, the Donald Trump administration unveiled a contentious policy aimed at rescinding the citizenship of naturalized U.S. citizens through a seldom-invoked statute (8 U.S. Code § 1451, “Revocation of naturalization”) that dates back to the Cold War (as part of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act). Enacted initially to facilitate the deportation of Nazi collaborators and suspected communist infiltrators, the administration’s reactivation of the statute signals a troubling resurgence of historical practices with profound implications for citizenship rights, human rights standards, and democratic integrity. This analysis critically examines the legal foundations, historical antecedents, implications for human rights, and the broader impact of this decision on democratic practices.
Historical Context: McCarthyism and Denaturalization
Denaturalization—the legal practice by which the U.S. government revokes the citizenship of a naturalized citizen—gained prominence during the McCarthy era (1940s–1950s), a period characterized by heightened anti-communist paranoia. Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy exploited denaturalization to persecute individuals accused of communist affiliations or espionage, employing it as a punitive mechanism ostensibly in defense of national security. What initially served protective purposes evolved into an instrument for political suppression and ideological policing. This mechanism effectively created a chilling environment, stifling political dissent and marginalizing those whose political beliefs deviated from the mainstream ideological narratives.
The legacy of denaturalization, however, extended beyond anti-communist campaigns. After the Cold War anti-communist denaturalization campaigns, this legislative framework facilitated the prosecution and deportation of former Nazi war criminals who concealed their wartime conduct upon entry into the United States. The Department of Justice (DOJ), notably through the efforts of Eli Rosenbaum, DOJ director from 1995 to 2010, leveraged these powers extensively, resulting in the denaturalization of over a hundred individuals implicated in Nazi crimes. This application underscored the potential utilitarian value of citizenship revocation in pursuing international justice. At the same time, it revealed how such measures can be vulnerable to expansive and problematic interpretations—a risk that has become starkly evident in contemporary practice.
The Trump Administration’s 2025 Policy: Expanded Scope and Political Implications
While denaturalization had previously been confined to narrowly defined cases, Trump’s second administration dramatically expanded its scope. The Department of Justice has intensified the use of 8 U.S. Code § 1451, authorising investigations that extend beyond fraudulent naturalization to include individuals deemed security threats or politically subversive. This shift marks a significant departure from established norms, amplifying the government’s power over citizenship status. A DOJ memorandum explicitly mandates heightened investigative efforts targeting not only demonstrable cases of fraudulent naturalization, but also broader categories deemed potential threats to national security, including political dissidents and activists. This broadening reflects a concerning departure from established norms and illustrates a substantial increase in the government’s authority over citizenship status.
Under Trump’s directive, collaborative efforts involving agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have commenced extensive reviews of naturalized citizens, potentially subjecting millions of people to heightened scrutiny. This directive notably singles out political activists, including advocates for Palestinian rights and vocal critics of the administration’s policies. The explicit targeting of ideological opponents represents an unprecedented politicization of citizenship and significantly heightens concerns regarding democratic erosion. This is because citizenship has traditionally been treated as a secure legal status—only revocable in rare cases of fraud or concealed crimes. Therefore, using denaturalization powers against ideological opponents changes its nature from a stable right into a conditional privilege tied to political loyalty.
Of particular concern is the administration’s adoption of ambiguous criteria, such as “bad moral character,” whose broad and subjective interpretation threatens procedural fairness. Trump’s public declarations endorsing investigations against political adversaries, including businessman and entrepreneur Elon Musk and New York mayoral Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, underline the overt political motivations behind these measures. These developments illustrate how denaturalization is no longer merely an administrative or punitive measure, but a political tool that can significantly undermine democratic legitimacy.
Moreover, denaturalization significantly increases the risks of family separations and associated humanitarian crises, particularly through derivative denaturalization processes affecting the dependents of targeted individuals. These processes can lead to profound psychological, social, and economic consequences for affected families, further exacerbating the humanitarian concerns surrounding denaturalization practices.
Legal and Human Rights Implications
Trump’s denaturalization policy presents significant legal challenges, confronting established precedents set by pivotal Supreme Court decisions. Landmark rulings, such as Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), asserted citizenship as an irrevocable right, absent demonstrable fraud or explicit consent. Additionally, Trop v. Dulles (1958) categorically condemned citizenship revocation, characterizing it as a punishment “more primitive than torture.” Such judicial pronouncements underscore that citizenship rights are inherently linked to fundamental human dignity and personal autonomy.
Moreover, the policy raises profound due process concerns, given that denaturalization proceedings occur within civil judicial frameworks, denying individuals the automatic right to publicly funded legal representation. Scholars such as Case Western Reserve University Professor Cassandra Burke Robertson argue that such mechanisms inherently disadvantage targeted populations, effectively generating second-class citizenship conditions and disproportionately affecting immigrant communities.
Internationally, the policy contravenes fundamental human rights principles, particularly Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which explicitly prohibits arbitrary deprivation of nationality. Furthermore, it conflicts with international efforts to reduce statelessness, as outlined in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Trump’s expansive application of denaturalization measures increases the risk that individuals will be stripped of their sole nationality, thereby rendering them stateless. This outcome directly undermines international human rights standards that protect against the deprivation of citizenship and its severe consequences.
Comparative Perspectives: Citizenship Revocation in the United Kingdom
The practice of citizenship revocation is not isolated to the United States, as exemplified by parallel mechanisms within the United Kingdom (UK) under the 1981 British Nationality Act. UK law permits the deprivation of citizenship on grounds of national security, public interest, or public safety—a power vividly illustrated by the contentious case of Shamima Begum. The UK revoked Begum’s citizenship on national security grounds, leaving her effectively stateless and stranded in Syria. Her case underscores the profound humanitarian and legal dilemmas associated with statelessness. It also demonstrates the significant human rights concerns associated with citizenship revocation and highlights the precarious nature of citizenship under contemporary national security paradigms.
Both the United States and the UK exemplify broader international trends toward conditional citizenship regimes, sparking critical dialogues about the balance between citizenship’s intrinsic rights and state-defined privileges. A comparative analysis underscores the potential for similar policies to be adopted internationally, thereby amplifying the need for robust human rights safeguards and accountability mechanisms.
Democratic Erosion and Chilling Effects
Trump’s denaturalization policy poses considerable risks to democratic governance by inducing widespread self-censorship among immigrant populations. As emphasized by Robertson and Hofstra University Professor Irina D. Manta, such governmental actions create profound barriers to political engagement and democratic participation, severely constraining the openness and robustness of public discourse. The chilling effect is exacerbated by fears of retribution and subsequent citizenship revocation, significantly affecting minority participation in political processes.
This chilling effect compromises democratic accountability, as individuals refrain from active political participation and criticism due to fear of citizenship revocation, thereby eroding the foundational democratic principles of free speech and civic engagement. This phenomenon effectively marginalizes critical voices within political discourse, weakening democratic resilience.
Conclusion
Trump’s initiative on citizenship revocation presents substantial challenges to democratic governance, human rights protection, and the normative foundations of citizenship. A comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach—historical analysis, legal critique, theoretical exploration, comparative perspectives, and socio-political implications—highlights the urgent need to reaffirm the inviolability of citizenship. Protecting democratic integrity globally necessitates confronting and critically examining policies that seek to redefine citizenship as conditional, discretionary, and politically instrumentalized.
* Bernardo Carvalho de Mello is a PhD candidate at Newcastle University Law School, focusing on the development of a taxonomy of discrimination in international human rights law. His research explores the application of intersectional frameworks to reconceptualise discrimination law, analysing traditional approaches and the role of regional human rights courts in addressing complex, layered harms. A central theme of his work is a commitment to decoloniality, both in research and practice, challenging Eurocentric legal frameworks and advocating for inclusive and just alternatives. He holds an LLB and Bachelor’s degree and Pedagogical Training in History from Estácio de Sá University, Brazil, as well as a Master’s in Constitutional Law and Legal Theory from Pontifícia Universidade Católica – Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Brazil.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.