Donald Trump Says He'd Denaturalize US Citizens 'In a Heartbeat'
Source: Newsweek
Published Jan 08, 2026 at 02:07 PM EST updated Jan 08, 2026 at 02:57 PM EST
President Donald Trump said he'd be willing to denaturalize some United States citizens "in a heartbeat." The president's remarks came in a wide-ranging two-hour interview with The New York Times on Wednesday. He made the initial remark specifically referencing Somali-Americans.
“I would do it in a heartbeat if they were dishonest,” Trump told The Times. “I think that many of the people that came in from Somalia, they hate our country.”
However, he went on to say that such an effort would not be limited to Somalis, saying his administration is taking steps to pursue denaturalizations. “If they deserve to be stripped, I would, yes,” Trump said.
Why It Matters
The Trump administration has taken a tough stance on immigration, as the president promised, with efforts to revoke immigrants' legal statuses—such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—along with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations aimed at those in the country without legal status. Revoking citizenship is a far tougher route, with cases being relatively rare.
Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-denaturalize-us-citizens-somali-immigration-11331811
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
wcmagumba
(5,650 posts)The President is a total dumb ass. 
rampartd
(3,822 posts)how long would it take to get to the supreme court?
answer = decades, and then the outcome could be in trump's favor.
in the meantime we are denaturalized and deported, .
Wiz Imp
(9,006 posts)It would get there within a year.
rampartd
(3,822 posts)and if i'm not settled in sudan or wherever they send me in a year , well, why would i come back if a lunatic might take power again and deport me all over?
Wiz Imp
(9,006 posts)If he tries to Denaturalize a citizen, some Federal judge will issue an immediate injunction which will prevent anyone's citizenship from being stripped until the Supreme Court hears the case - and they would rule against Trump (yes, even this court would never rule in his favor on this issue with long established precedent).
rampartd
(3,822 posts)and that if the attorney general writes a memo that will be given great "presumption of normalcy"
no, trump is not omnipotent, but, so far, he does not appear to be restrained by legal considerations.
Wiz Imp
(9,006 posts)
MarineCombatEngineer
(17,735 posts)nothing takes decades to get to the SCOTUS and, even if that were true, it would be a whole different ball of wax by then, Trumpedo and his MAGAt's would be just a footnote in the trash bin of history.
angrychair
(11,698 posts)I do agree that he would win because the courts have essentially conceded omnipotent power to him and Congress has refused to do anything but talk a lot.
I truly believe at this point that he can, very literally, do anything he wants because even if the courts rule against him it's toothless because there is no way for the courts to enforce anything on him.
rampartd
(3,822 posts)but those judges will get very tired of the prank calls and pizza deliveries, the death threats and vandalism.
just to be overturned on the shadow docket.
homegirl
(1,926 posts)Melania, who lied and worked while in the USA on a tourist visa! And I will pay $100. to anyone who can provide her verified qualification for a "genius" visa entry!
marble falls
(71,104 posts)
Skittles
(169,601 posts)gold diggers like his fucking wife need not fear because Trump is a racist POS
LetMyPeopleVote
(175,007 posts)Here is a good analysis of denaturalization. It would be almost impossible for trump to strip Rosie of her citizenship without a nasty lawsuit
With President Trump threatening to revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship, it seems like a good time to re-up my explainer on denaturalization and expatriation — and why what Trump is suggesting is … not viable:
— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2025-07-12T18:40:26.584Z
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/146-denaturalization-and-expatriation
Historically, and for good reasons, it has been exceptionally difficult for the government to involuntarily revoke an American’s citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1481 identifies seven classes of activities that can subject citizens to a loss of citizenship:
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
As should be clear from this list, most of the circumstances involve behavior in which an individual has manifested a specific and voluntary desire to surrender their citizenship—and not when citizenship has been revoked as a punishment. And even for subsection (a)(7), the one part that doesn’t seem to require that on its face, the statute today includes an umbrella condition—that loss of citizenship depends upon whether the individual “voluntarily perform[ed] any of the [specified] acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.”......
Section 1481 applies to all U.S. citizens. For naturalized citizens (i.e., those who become citizens after birth), there’s one additional basis for revoking citizenship—and that’s if and only if their citizenship was “illegally procured or . . . procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” Here, too, the statute (and, almost certainly, the Constitution) requires notice and meaningful judicial review before an American’s citizenship can be stripped. As 8 U.S.C. § 1451(b) mandates,
The party to whom was granted the naturalization alleged to have been illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation shall, in any such proceedings under subsection (a) of this section, have sixty days’ personal notice, unless waived by such party, in which to make answers to the petition of the United States . . . .
Of course, the government can pursue denaturalization on broader grounds than it can pursue expatriation—since the Constitution doesn’t create a substantive right to naturalization in the same way it does for birthright citizenship. But the key is that here, too, the Supreme Court has regularly insisted not only on meaningful judicial review of denaturalization proceedings, but on construing the relevant statutes narrowly—including, most recently, in 2017. (For much more on the complexities of denaturalization, see this fantastic February 2020 “Practice Advisory” from the National Lawyers Guild and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.)
In other words, although denaturalization is potentially available in more cases than expatriation, it still requires meaningful, individualized judicial review—review that holds the government to a significant burden in providing that an individual wrongfully obtained their citizenship, and not just that they engaged in questionable behavior thereafter. There is, simply, no easy, fast path to revoking any American’s citizenship without their consent—and there hasn’t been for decades. That may not stop the current administration from trying it anyway, or from removing citizens unlawfully and then resisting the legal consequences. But it’s important to be clear on what the actual legal authority for such maneuvers would be. Here, there isn’t any.
I was so sad to see Professor Vladeck leave the University of Texas Law School.
SamKnause
(14,695 posts)He wants to denaturalize all of his enemies and deport us to gulags all over the world.
LetMyPeopleVote
(175,007 posts)Tonight, trump announced that he wants to revoke the citizenship of naturalized US citizens.
Link to tweet
We are fortunate that the SCOTUS has addressed this issue
Link to tweet
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-supreme-court-rejected-denaturalization-political-weapon-long-ago
Under the law today, the government may seek denaturalization proceedings either when naturalization is obtained illegally or disqualifying facts on citizenship applications are concealed. But throughout much of the 20th century, it was much easier to achieve.....
A few years later, the Supreme Court warned against using denaturalization proceedings as a political weapon. “Ill-tempered expressions, extreme views, even the promotion of ideas which run counter to our American ideals, are not to be given disloyal connotations in absence of solid, convincing evidence that that is their significance,” the Court’s majority wrote. “Any other course would run counter to our traditions, and make denaturalization proceedings the ready instrument for political persecutions.”
In 1967, the Court found that under the 14th Amendment, the government cannot forcibly deprive a naturalized American of citizenship without the citizen’s consent, except when citizenship is “unlawfully procured.”
In the succeeding decades, denaturalizations declined significantly. Between 1990 and 2017, the Justice Department filed an average of just 11 cases per year. Only during the Obama administration did they climb, when new technology allowed the government to search decades of data for indicators of possible fraud. In 2016, the yearly average rose to 15. During the first Trump administration, the program expanded, increasing the average to 25 per year.....
The second Trump administration is picking up where the last one left off, filing at least 25 cases in the first 10 months of 2025. Based on publicly available information, these cases are not obviously aimed at political viewpoints. But any attempt to use denaturalization as a political weapon will run into significant legal hurdles. The Supreme Court’s firmly established limits on the process are not only robust, but also deeply rooted in protections guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments.
ancianita
(42,901 posts)Good to know and much appreciated.
BadgerMom
(3,380 posts)That doesn’t stop me from raging about the “journalists” who ask these questions about unconstitutional actions. Why act as though he has the right to do this or that he can run again? Why legitimize his cruelty and selfish at all?
creon
(1,821 posts)You are 100% correct
maxsolomon
(38,206 posts)and her citizenship was in jeopardy. I said it wasn't: he's just full of shit.
Now, 
FakeNoose
(40,196 posts)He can get people scared but he can't follow through, because it's already been ruled on by SCOTUS.
I hate the MAGAs for voting Chump back into power, but even now, his authority is limited.
AZLD4Candidate
(6,733 posts)
unblock
(55,928 posts)PortTack
(35,815 posts)ancianita
(42,901 posts)fraud case. He'll do that to every non-white demographic across this country next.
In political engagement, Somali Americans in Minnesota have become a significant political force, building community infrastructure, advocacy groups, and cultural centers since their arrival in the 1990s. The community has elected several members to local and state offices, including U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar, the first Somali American in Congress.
Economic analyses show that the community contributes significantly to the state's economy. One study cited an estimated $500 million in Somali income and $67 million annually in state and local taxes, with a total economic impact estimated at about $8 billion. Many arrived seeking job opportunities and found work in various industries, including meatpacking, using their social networks to establish themselves.
As for their citizenship, the overwhelming majority of Somalis in Minnesota are U.S. citizens or legal residents who went through legal refugee resettlement processes and background checks.
A significant controversy involves a large-scale fraud scheme where over $250 million in federal children's food aid was reportedly stolen by a small group of individuals, some of whom were Somali. This case has led to criticism and increased scrutiny of the community and state social service programs. And Trump/Noem attacks on MN.
Overall, many Minnesotans describe their Somali neighbors as "hardworking, family-oriented, deeply committed to Minnesota" people who are vital parts of their communities.
Buddyzbuddy
(2,133 posts)Second, nobody hates America as much as you, Miller, Musk, Ellison, Putin, MAGA'S, January sixer's, six Supreme Court Justices, Republicans, etc., etc., etc.. Which is the reason why you want to change the thing that makes us uniquely American, our diversity. And, why you treat our Constitution like one of your ex-wives.
dalton99a
(92,146 posts)Evolve Dammit
(21,501 posts)
DinahMoeHum
(23,369 posts)
patphil
(8,733 posts)We can only hope.
raising2moredems
(749 posts)as well as deporting her chain migration father.
Seinan Sensei
(1,372 posts)
Rebl2
(17,410 posts)his wife can be the first one
creon
(1,821 posts)He cannot.
Codifer
(1,160 posts)Deport me to Wales. Or Ireland....... PLEASE!!!
ChicagoTeamster
(445 posts)We’re on the side of Western Europe. The others could be spies. What’s Trump’s reason for trying to ban people from the Middle East and Africa? Skin color? Religion?
DJ Synikus Makisimus
(1,184 posts)Give it another year and see what you think of the law then.
Norrrm
(4,020 posts)Trump's perfect judge... Roland Freisler
Such a keen legal mind that he put into law that original citizenship could be revoked...
Start approx 1:53 on the timeline.
.
timms139
(484 posts)dishonest man in the world going take someone else's citizenship for being dishonest. If that isn't fodder for SNL nothing is .
iemanja
(57,394 posts)He’s the biggest liar and fraudster in the country. Trump needs to be deported to the motherland—Russia. He can go fuck himself with a tiki torch.
AcanthaV
(4 posts)This is a direct assault on the 14th Amendment. Citizenship isn't a subscription service that the President can cancel because he doesn't like your 'attitude' or where you came from. Once you are naturalized, you are an American, period. The idea of using denaturalization as a political tool is a slippery slope toward a two-tiered citizenship system.