WASHINGTON (Diya TV) — The Justice Department is making denaturalization a top priority again. A new internal memo, made public on June 11, shows federal attorneys are now focusing on revoking the U.S. citizenship of some naturalized Americans. These changes come as the Trump administration continues reshaping the nation’s immigration system.
According to the memo, the Justice Department will now file civil lawsuits to revoke citizenship. This approach allows the government to act quickly without providing a public defender. That’s because civil cases don’t guarantee legal representation.
Law experts say this move raises major concerns. They warn that the process may violate the 14th Amendment, which promises equal protection and due process. Critics fear it will create a two-tiered system that treats foreign-born citizens differently.
Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said civil proceedings lower the bar for evidence. “It becomes much easier for the government to win,” she said.
The new policy is already in action. On June 13, a federal judge stripped Elliott Duke of their citizenship. Duke, who served in the U.S. Army, was born in the United Kingdom and was later naturalized. They were convicted of distributing child sexual abuse material, which they admitted began before they became a citizen.
The Justice Department argued Duke lied during their application process. The court agreed, even though Duke said they couldn’t afford legal help or attend the hearing.
Now, Duke is stateless. “My heart shattered,” they said after reading the court’s decision.
Denaturalization is not new. It was widely used during the McCarthy era in the late 1940s and 1950s. Back then, it targeted people accused of hiding ties to communism or the Nazi party. The practice slowed after a 1967 Supreme Court ruling declared it undemocratic.
Still, the Obama administration brought it back through a program called Operation Janus. That effort used digital tools to find older cases of fraud, especially those tied to national security threats.
The Trump administration then expanded its use. Instead of criminal cases, it chose to pursue civil ones. Now, Trump’s second term appears set to increase that effort even more.
Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate wrote that denaturalization is now one of the department’s five top civil enforcement priorities.
“The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law,” Shumate said.
The memo also gives U.S. attorneys more freedom to decide who should be targeted. It lists crimes like terrorism, fraud, and national security violations as key triggers. But it also adds broad categories that could open the door to many more cases.
Steve Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University, said the vague language gives the government “wide discretion” that could impact families and children of naturalized citizens.
Some conservative groups back the policy. Hans von Spakovsky, a legal expert at the Heritage Foundation, said, “Anyone who abuses the privilege of citizenship should lose it.”
He also pushed back on due process concerns. “Nothing is stopping them from hiring a lawyer,” he said. “Taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill.”
On the other hand, immigration advocates say the policy is unfair. Sameera Hafiz of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center warned that it could create a second-class status for immigrants.
“It’s shocking and very concerning,” she said. “It sends a message that even naturalized citizens are never truly secure.”
Legal scholars also worry about the broader impact. If a parent loses citizenship, their children may also be at risk.
Lubet said, “It could hurt people who have done nothing wrong. Families could be torn apart.”
The Justice Department’s renewed push is sparking legal and ethical debates across the country. While officials say it’s about protecting national security, critics argue it threatens the core values of American democracy. As more cases unfold, the nation will watch closely to see how far the government is willing to go.
