The recent statements by presidential candidate Donald Trump suggesting he could potentially revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans have sent shockwaves through immigrant communities nationwide. During a campaign rally in Michigan last week, Trump specifically named tech billionaire Elon Musk and Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani as examples of naturalized citizens whose status he questioned.
“When I return to office, we’re going to take a hard look at people who got their citizenship but don’t love America,” Trump declared to the crowd of supporters. “People like Musk and that professor Mamdani – maybe they should go back where they came from if they hate our country so much.”
These comments have raised serious constitutional and legal questions about the limits of presidential power and the protections afforded to naturalized citizens. I spoke with immigration experts and constitutional scholars to understand what’s actually possible under current law.
“The president cannot unilaterally revoke someone’s citizenship,” explained Sarah Walters, immigration attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “The Constitution doesn’t distinguish between natural-born and naturalized citizens in terms of rights and protections once citizenship is granted.”
The 14th Amendment explicitly states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld strong protections for naturalized citizens. In the landmark 1967 case Afroyim v. Rusk, the Court ruled that American citizenship can only be voluntarily relinquished, not forcibly removed by the government except in extremely limited circumstances.
According to Department of Homeland Security data, denaturalization is exceedingly rare. Only about 150 Americans have had their citizenship revoked in the past 50 years, primarily for fraud in the naturalization process or for concealing involvement in war crimes. The bar for such actions is intentionally high.
“This kind of rhetoric creates a dangerous second-class citizenship,” said Representative Pramila Jayapal, herself a naturalized citizen from India. “The suggestion that millions of Americans who came here legally and followed every rule could somehow lose their rights based on political disagreements is fundamentally un-American.”
The targeting of Musk seems particularly surprising given his previous support for Trump. The Tesla CEO, who was born in South Africa and became a U.S. citizen in 2002, has recently criticized certain immigration policies proposed by the Trump campaign. Mamdani, a renowned scholar born in Uganda who became a citizen in 1989, has been more vocal in his opposition to Trump’s platform.
Neither Musk nor Mamdani has directly responded to Trump’s comments, though Musk cryptically tweeted “Citizenship is not conditional on political agreement” the day after the rally.
Constitutional law professor Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Berkeley told me that Trump’s statements reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of citizenship rights. “The Constitution doesn’t create different tiers of citizenship. The president cannot strip citizenship rights from Americans simply because he disagrees with their political views or statements.”
The practical implementation of any mass denaturalization effort would face insurmountable legal hurdles. The Justice Department would need to file individual lawsuits against each person, proving by clear and convincing evidence that their naturalization was illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation.
“The courts have repeatedly emphasized that American citizenship is a precious right,” noted Michael Kagan, director of the Immigration Clinic at UNLV. “Any attempt to create a system where the president could revoke citizenship based on subjective judgments about ‘loving America’ would almost certainly be struck down.”
Historical context matters here too. During World War II, Japanese Americans – many citizens by birth – were interned in camps based on fears about their loyalty. This dark chapter in American history led to the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, in which the U.S. government formally apologized and provided reparations for this violation of constitutional rights.
The Trump campaign has attempted to walk back the comments, with spokesperson Taylor Johnson stating: “The president was simply emphasizing the importance of assimilation and patriotism among all Americans. He has no plans to revoke anyone’s legitimate citizenship.”
However, immigration advocates remain concerned about the broader implications of such rhetoric. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that 67% of naturalized citizens report increased anxiety about their status following these types of statements.
“Even empty threats create real fear,” said Deepa Iyer, director of the South Asian Americans Leading Together organization. “When the former president singles out specific naturalized citizens by name, it sends a message to millions of others that their belonging in America is conditional.”
For the approximately 23 million naturalized U.S. citizens, these statements raise troubling questions about their place in American society. Legal experts uniformly agree that while the rhetoric may be alarming, the constitutional protections for citizenship remain strong.
As our nation grapples with questions of immigration, citizenship, and national identity, it’s crucial to understand both the legal realities and the human impact of political rhetoric. Whatever one’s views on immigration policy, the equal protection of all citizens under the law remains a cornerstone of American democracy – one that even a president cannot easily dismantle.
