Denaturalization of U.S. Citizenship: History, Legal Grounds, and Enforcement Priorities

As an immigration attorney at SG Legal Group, I am often asked about the risks of losing U.S. citizenship once it has been granted. While rare, denaturalization — the judicial revocation of U.S. citizenship — remains a powerful enforcement tool. To understand its seriousness, it is helpful to place denaturalization in a broad historical context and then examine how U.S. law currently approaches it.

‍

A Long History of Citizenship as a Tool of Power

Denaturalization is not unique to the United States. Throughout history, governments have used citizenship — and the threat of losing it — as a means of control.

• Ancient Rome: Roman citizenship was a prized status, sometimes granted to non-Romans for civic contributions or even purchased with wealth. Freed enslaved persons could become citizens, while non-Romans were often dismissed as “barbarians.”

• Medieval and Early Modern Europe: England’s 1290 Edict of Expulsion forced Jews to leave, treating them as non-citizens. Centuries later, Spain expelled Muslims and Jews during the Inquisition.

• Modern Era Examples: The Ottoman Empire stripped Armenians of citizenship rights while committing atrocities, including mass deportations. Australia’s Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 led to disenfranchisement of Chinese Australians. Apartheid-era South Africa’s “Black Citizenship Act” created fictitious “homelands” to strip Black South Africans of real citizenship. In Cuba, many who fled Castro’s regime permanently forfeited their right to Cuban citizenship.

These examples remind us that citizenship has long been used as both a reward and a punishment. This history makes it important to watch carefully when our own government discusses expanding the use of denaturalization.

‍

What Is Denaturalization Under U.S. Law?

Denaturalization is distinct from renunciation, which occurs when a U.S. citizen voluntarily gives up their citizenship. It is also different from administrative revocation, which USCIS cannot do on its own. Denaturalization requires a judicial order in federal court.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigates potential fraud and, if warranted, refers cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ then decides whether to file a civil revocation action or criminal charges. Only a federal judge can revoke U.S. citizenship.

‍

Grounds for Denaturalization

Two primary grounds exist under U.S. law:

1. Fraud under INA § 340(a): Obtaining naturalization by concealing a material fact or making a willful misrepresentation.

• Elements include: (1) misrepresentation or concealment of fact, (2) willfulness, (3) materiality, and (4) citizenship obtained as a result.

2. Illegal procurement of naturalization under 18 U.S.C. § 1425: Naturalization granted despite ineligibility (e.g., failure to meet lawful permanent residence, physical presence, or good moral character requirements). Fraudulent intent is not required for this ground.

In both cases, the DOJ must prove its case before a federal judge.

‍

Burden of Proof and the Role of Materiality

Denaturalization is not taken lightly. The government must meet the high standard of proof of “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” that leaves no doubt that naturalization was obtained fraudulently or illegally.

In fraud-based cases, the materiality requirement is especially important. The Supreme Court addressed this in Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017). In that case, the government sought to revoke Diana Maslenjak’s citizenship, claiming she lied about her husband’s role in a Serbian militia. The Court held that not every false statement justifies denaturalization. Only lies or omissions that could have influenced the naturalization decision are material. As the Court emphasized, “small omissions and minor lies” should not strip a person of U.S. citizenship.

This ruling raised the bar for the government, limiting denaturalization to cases where fraud was truly decisive in the grant of naturalization.

‍

Criminal vs. Civil Denaturalization

• Civil proceedings (revocation of naturalization) return the person to their prior immigration status.

• Criminal proceedings (under 18 U.S.C. § 1425) may result in imprisonment, in addition to loss of citizenship. The criminal standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt — the highest in U.S. law.

‍

DOJ Priorities and Recent Trends

Historically, denaturalization cases have been rare. Between 1990 and 2017, the government averaged about 11 cases per year. During the first Trump administration, that number rose to 25 annually.

DOJ guidance has prioritized denaturalization cases involving:

• National security risks

• Human rights violators and war criminals

• Individuals who concealed serious criminal history

In June 2025, the Trump administration expanded priorities to include:

• Individuals involved with gangs or cartels

• Human traffickers

• Financial fraud offenders

• Naturalization obtained through corruption or fraud

The administration even listed denaturalization among its “Top 5 immigration enforcement priorities.”

Still, denaturalization is resource-intensive and expensive. Without major funding increases, widespread use of this tool is unlikely. Moreover, the high legal standards and burdens of proof act as safeguards against mass revocations.

‍

Why This Matters

Even though denaturalization remains rare, the fear it generates in immigrant communities is real. Naturalized citizens should understand:

• USCIS cannot revoke citizenship on its own — only a federal court can.

• The government faces a steep evidentiary burden, especially after Maslenjak.

• Political rhetoric may exaggerate the likelihood of mass denaturalization, but real cases still occur each year.

As an attorney, I emphasize that naturalized citizens should be truthful and thorough during the naturalization process. If mistakes were made, consult an experienced immigration attorney before pursuing further benefits.

‍

Conclusion

Denaturalization is a serious but limited tool of immigration enforcement. Rooted in a long history of governments using citizenship to control populations, it continues to raise important questions about fairness, security, and due process. While recent political discussions have spotlighted denaturalization, the law’s high standards and judicial safeguards remain firmly in place.

If you need guidance on citizenship or naturalization issues, contact me at SG Legal Group. My team and I will help you navigate the process with confidence. Consultations are available in English, Russian, or Romanian. Call 410-618-1288 or visit our contact page to schedule a consultation.