Today, Explained: Revoking U.S. Citizenship

Release Date: July 24, 2025
Hosts: Sean Rameswaram and Noel King
Network: Vox Media Podcast Network

Introduction: The Surge in Denaturalization Efforts

In this episode of Today, Explained, hosts Sean Rameswaram and Noel King delve into the increasingly prominent issue of denaturalization in the United States, particularly under the current administration led by Donald Trump. With Trump re-entering office six months prior, the podcast highlights a shift in immigration policies, focusing on the controversial act of revoking U.S. citizenship from naturalized citizens.

Sean Rameswaram opens the discussion by referencing previous immigration stories covered by the podcast, such as deportations to El Salvador and Guantanamo Bay:

[00:01] Sean Rameswaram: "Donald Trump re-entered office about six months ago, and since then we've covered a lot of immigration stories on Today Explained."

The DOJ Memo and Expanded Denaturalization Powers

Nicole Naray, a senior politics reporter at Vox, introduces the topic by discussing a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) memorandum aimed at expanding the scope of denaturalization. She references an interview with Amanda Frost, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, who provides insight into the DOJ's new approach.

Amanda Frost explains the contents and implications of the DOJ memo:

[02:13] Amanda Frost: "The DOJ put out this memo essentially saying that it would try to strip citizenship from people who had, quote, illegally procured American citizenship... because of misrepresentation on their citizenship application, ineligibility at the time of application, or committing crimes that warranted stripping them of citizenship."

Frost emphasizes that the memo goes beyond traditional grounds for denaturalization by allowing actions against individuals who haven't been convicted but are merely charged with crimes. Additionally, the memo grants U.S. Attorneys broader discretion to pursue denaturalization for a wide array of reasons:

[02:30] Nicole Naraya: "The DOJ is also giving US Attorneys wider discretion on when to pursue denaturalization, that it would permit the division to denaturalize for just about anything."

High-Profile Targets and Political Motivations

The discussion shifts to specific cases where Trump has publicly threatened to denaturalize prominent individuals. Sean Rameswaram cites Mamdani, a New York mayoral candidate, and Elon Musk, the electric car magnate, as notable targets:

[02:59] Sean Rameswaram: "Donald Trump has made some high-profile threats to denaturalize various Americans. I think New York mayoral candidate Mamdani comes to mind. And also electric car magnate Elon Musk."

Amanda Frost elaborates on Musk's and Mamdani's cases, highlighting the political motivations behind these threats:

[03:19] Amanda Frost: "Both have been some targets that Trump has identified. Elon Musk... Trump sort of made suggestions that he could be denaturalized."

Mamdani shares his personal experience, detailing how Trump's rhetoric has directly impacted his political aspirations:

[03:50] Mamdani: "Donald Trump said that I should be arrested, he said that I should be deported, he said that I should be denaturalized... someone who stands to be the first immigrant mayor of this city and generations."

Legal Processes and Due Process Concerns

The podcast transitions to a deeper analysis of the legal framework surrounding denaturalization. Amanda Frost outlines the procedural aspects and the due process concerns that arise when the government pursues denaturalization:

[06:00] Amanda Frost: "There is a process associated here that has to play out before a judge, but there are some due process concerns... defendants won't get an attorney, and the burden of proof on the government's part is a lot lower than it would be in criminal court."

She highlights the narrow legal grounds for denaturalization under current law, which traditionally includes committing human rights violations, fraud in the naturalization process, or lacking good moral character. However, Frost points out that the Trump administration's broad interpretation could stretch these provisions dangerously:

[06:26] Amanda Frost: "Those last two provisions in particular are kind of worrying because they can be interpreted pretty broadly. It's like, what does good moral character really mean?"

Historical Context: Denaturalization in U.S. History

To provide a comprehensive understanding, the podcast features Professor TANEY, a law professor and author, who recounts the historical instances of denaturalization in the United States. He traces the origins back to the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857:

[13:18] Professor TANEY: "The idea of taking away citizenship generally, even of the native born, is not a novel concept. It started with Dred Scott."

Professor TANEY discusses the 1907 Expatriation Act, which stripped U.S. citizen women of their citizenship upon marrying non-citizen men, reflecting the intertwined nature of sexism and racism in historical denaturalization efforts:

[15:20] Professor TANEY: "All those citizen women who married a non-citizen automatically lost their citizenship upon marriage... the idea that you could not have an independent legal identity or existence as a woman aside from that of your husband."

He further explores the mid-20th century denaturalization campaigns during the Red Scare and McCarthyism, where thousands of naturalized citizens were revoked based on political affiliations:

[17:59] Professor TANEY: "The government targeted naturalized citizens who were involved in Communist activities... over 22,000 people lost their citizenship."

Rudy Giuliani, representing historical governmental perspectives, underscores the intense anti-communist sentiments of the era:

[18:57] Rudy Giuliani: "One communist on the faculty of one university is one Communist too many."

The historical overview culminates with the 1967 Supreme Court decision in Afriemi v. Rusk, which curtailed the government's ability to revoke citizenship based solely on political beliefs, allowing denaturalization only for fraud or similar offenses:

[20:51] Professor TANEY: "The Supreme Court attempted to put an end to denaturalization... but in a footnote, the court said... you can lose your citizenship if you naturalize through fraud or through error."

Modern Implications and Future Outlook

Returning to the present, Sean Rameswaram and Amanda Frost reflect on the potential resurgence of denaturalization as a political tool under Trump’s administration. Frost expresses concern over the administration's intentions to use denaturalization to instill fear among naturalized citizens:

[10:23] Amanda Frost: "The administration is pushing the bounds of what many people... thought possible. The goal of all of that is fear."

Professor TANEY warns of the cyclical nature of denaturalization efforts driven by fear and distrust, drawing parallels to past injustices such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II:

[22:38] Professor TANEY: "The battles that you fought in the past are never fully in the past and have to be refought every generation or so."

The conversation concludes with a sobering reminder of the fragile nature of citizenship and the continual need to safeguard it against political misuse.

Key Takeaways

1. Expanded DOJ Powers: The current administration is actively seeking to broaden the criteria for denaturalization, targeting not only those who fraudulently obtained citizenship but also individuals merely charged with crimes.

2. High-Profile Targets: Political figures like Mamdani and Elon Musk have been publicly threatened with denaturalization, signaling a potential weaponization of citizenship revocation for political retribution.

3. Historical Precedents: Denaturalization has a long and troubling history in the U.S., often intersecting with social prejudices such as racism and sexism, and has been used as a tool for political suppression.

4. Legal and Ethical Concerns: The expanded use of denaturalization raises significant due process issues and may face substantial legal challenges, especially given the current conservative majority in the Supreme Court.

5. Ongoing Vigilance Needed: The episode emphasizes the importance of understanding historical contexts to recognize and combat modern attempts to undermine citizenship rights.

Notable Quotes

• Amanda Frost:
  "The DOJ is making a concerted effort here to expand its use [of denaturalization]."
  [02:30]

• Mamdani:
  "Donald Trump said that I should be arrested, he said that I should be deported, he said that I should be denaturalized."
  [03:50]

• Professor TANEY:
  "The battles that you fought in the past are never fully in the past and have to be refought every generation or so."
  [22:38]

• Rudy Giuliani:
  "One communist on the faculty of one university is one Communist too many."
  [18:57]

This episode serves as a crucial exposé on the mechanisms and motivations behind denaturalization efforts in the U.S., urging listeners to remain informed and vigilant about the evolving landscape of citizenship rights.