This article was originally published on Crafting Your Home. A human contributor also wrote and edited the post.
For decades, losing U.S. citizenship through government action was an extraordinary event, generally associated with hidden war crimes, terrorism, or serious fraud.
That is beginning to change.
The Trump administration is dramatically increasing the number of cases seeking to strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship. The Justice Department has filed at least 89 denaturalization cases since the beginning of 2025, according to a department official cited by USA TODAY. At least 19 had resulted in government victories by July 22, 2026.
Federal officials are now aiming to file at least 250 cases during the 2026 fiscal year, a target that would make denaturalization a far more visible part of the administration’s broader immigration enforcement campaign.
The numbers remain small compared with the millions of naturalized citizens living in the United States. Yet the pace represents a striking departure from the cautious approach followed by most recent administrations.
A rarely used legal power returns to center stage
Denaturalization is the legal process through which the federal government asks a court to cancel citizenship that was obtained unlawfully.
Federal law allows the government to pursue a case when citizenship was illegally procured or obtained through the concealment of a material fact or a willful misrepresentation.
That might include using a false identity, hiding a disqualifying criminal history, or lying about conduct that would have prevented approval of a naturalization application.
The process applies to naturalized citizens. It is not a general power allowing a president to remove citizenship from Americans who acquired it at birth or from political opponents who express unpopular views.
Courts have also placed important limits on the government. In Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not involuntarily take citizenship away from a person who had lawfully obtained it. Later decisions established that an irrelevant or harmless mistake is not automatically enough to justify citizenship revocation.
Prosecutors must connect the alleged deception to the person’s eligibility for naturalization. In practical terms, the government generally must show that the person should not have received citizenship in the first place.
A Justice Department memo widened the mission.
The administration’s direction became clear in a June 11, 2025, Justice Department memorandum establishing new Civil Division enforcement priorities.
The memo instructed government attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue” legally supportable denaturalization proceedings. It identified cases involving national security, terrorism, espionage, war crimes, human-rights abuses, gangs, drug cartels, undisclosed felonies, human trafficking, violent crimes, sexual offenses and financial fraud.
It also included a broad category covering other cases that Civil Division leaders consider important enough to pursue.
Supporters see the policy as a long-overdue defense of the naturalization system. Their argument is straightforward: citizenship obtained through serious deception should not become untouchable simply because the fraud was discovered years later.
Critics are more concerned about the scale and discretion built into the new approach. They fear that broad priorities could allow enforcement decisions to be influenced by politics, ideology or pressure from senior officials.
Those concerns have grown as denaturalization rhetoric has increasingly appeared in political arguments involving elected officials and administration critics. However, political disagreement by itself is not a lawful basis for revoking citizenship. The government would still need to file a case in federal court and prove that the person’s original naturalization was unlawful.
The cases involve serious allegations.
The Justice Department says its campaign is focused on people accused of hiding conduct that would have disqualified them from becoming citizens.
On July 20, 2026, the department announced 10 new cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse, health care fraud, wire fraud, immigration fraud and cocaine trafficking. The complaints had been filed in federal courts across several states during the previous 30 days.
Another group of 12 cases announced in May included allegations involving terrorist support, war crimes, espionage, sexual abuse and weapons trafficking.
These accusations are severe, but a civil complaint is not the same as a final judgment. Each defendant can contest the allegations, challenge the government’s evidence and appeal an unfavorable decision.
That judicial review is one reason denaturalization has never functioned like a rapid deportation program.
The historical numbers show how unusual the expansion is
Between 1990 and 2017, the federal government filed an average of approximately 11 denaturalization cases per year, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Fewer than 150 people were denaturalized between the Supreme Court’s landmark 1967 ruling and 2017.
The practice expanded during Trump’s first presidency as officials reviewed old fingerprint records and cases involving people suspected of using different identities.
That initiative produced considerably more litigation than previous administrations, but it still fell far short of the government’s original targets. The first Trump administration averaged roughly 25 civil denaturalization filings annually, while the Biden administration reduced the pace to approximately four cases per year, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
The current goal of at least 250 filings in a single fiscal year therefore marks a major escalation, even if many complaints ultimately take years to resolve.
Citizenship cases cannot move at deportation speed.
Denaturalization litigation is slow, evidence-heavy and expensive.
Government lawyers must reconstruct immigration histories that may stretch back decades. They may need naturalization forms, criminal records, fingerprints, foreign documents, witness testimony and proof that an alleged falsehood was material to the original citizenship decision.
Defendants can demand discovery, dispute translations, challenge historical records and appeal rulings through the federal court system.
The administration has attempted to increase its capacity by drawing on lawyers from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and involving U.S. attorneys’ offices around the country. By May 2026, the government had reportedly identified hundreds of potential cases for further review.
That strategy may increase filing numbers, but it also carries an institutional cost. Every attorney assigned to a denaturalization lawsuit is an attorney who cannot simultaneously handle another civil enforcement matter involving corruption, health care fraud, environmental violations or government misconduct.
Losing citizenship does not guarantee immediate deportation.
The larger question is how permanent citizenship should feel.
The Justice Department describes its initiative as a campaign against fraud, not against immigration or naturalized Americans generally.
Yet enforcement policy is judged by more than the strongest cases used to introduce it. Its long-term significance will depend on how officials select defendants, whether political considerations influence referrals and how carefully courts examine the government’s evidence.
For millions of naturalized Americans, citizenship represents the final stage of a long legal journey. It provides voting rights, a U.S. passport and the expectation that membership in the country is secure.
The Trump administration’s campaign does not erase those protections. Federal judges remain responsible for deciding every disputed case, and the government must satisfy demanding legal standards before citizenship can be revoked.
Still, the rapid increase in filings sends an unmistakable message. Denaturalization is no longer being treated as an obscure legal remedy reserved for a few exceptional cases. It is becoming a deliberate and highly visible instrument of federal immigration policy.
Whether that shift ultimately strengthens the integrity of citizenship or weakens public confidence in its permanence will be determined case by case, inside federal courtrooms across the country.
If you like what you just read, then subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on social media.
