Last updated 5 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The President of the United States cannot unilaterally strip anyone of their citizenship. Rosie O’Donnell or otherwise.
This power is strictly limited by the Constitution and decades of Supreme Court rulings that treat citizenship as a fundamental right, not a government privilege.
The path to losing citizenship is narrow and legally complex. For citizens by birth, the right is constitutionally protected and virtually absolute. For naturalized citizens, citizenship can be revoked through a specific judicial process called denaturalization—but only if the government can prove in federal court that citizenship was originally obtained through fraud or illegality.
Any U.S. citizen can voluntarily give up their citizenship through renunciation or expatriation but the president and other government representatives can force this choice.
Why Citizenship Cannot Be Involuntarily Revoked
U.S. citizenship is not a simple grant of privilege from the government. It’s a constitutional right embedded in the nation’s legal foundation. The Fourteenth Amendment and Supreme Court decisions have established that the government cannot sever its relationship with a citizen without their consent.
The Fourteenth Amendment Protection
The primary shield protecting citizenship is the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Ratified on July 9, 1868, its Citizenship Clause provides a clear definition of who is a citizen.
This amendment was enacted after the Civil War to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Dred Scott ruling had declared that people of African descent could never be citizens of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment reversed this injustice and placed citizenship on solid constitutional ground.
The clause’s wording is deliberate. By stating “All persons born or naturalized,” it extends protection to both native-born and naturalized citizens, establishing a single, unified class of citizenship. Once citizenship is lawfully obtained, it is held with the same security regardless of its origin.
Political debate sometimes focuses on the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Some argue this could exclude U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship. But the Supreme Court addressed this in the landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
The Court ruled that a person born in San Francisco to Chinese parents—who themselves were barred from becoming citizens—was a U.S. citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court clarified that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes only a very narrow set of individuals, such as children of foreign diplomats or hostile occupying forces. Nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen at birth.
Supreme Court Rulings That Secured Citizenship
Two 20th-century Supreme Court decisions built a legal fortress around citizenship. These cases used different constitutional amendments to block the government from using citizenship revocation as either punishment or a regulatory tool.
Trop v. Dulles: Citizenship Revocation as Cruel Punishment
The 1958 case Trop v. Dulles involved Albert Trop, a native-born citizen and U.S. Army private convicted of desertion for a single day during World War II. Under the Nationality Act of 1940, this conviction automatically cost him his citizenship. When Trop was later denied a passport, he sued, arguing that stripping citizenship was unconstitutional.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that revoking citizenship as punishment violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments.” Warren described denationalization as “a form of punishment more primitive than torture” because it leads to the “total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society.”
A person stripped of citizenship becomes “stateless”—without the legal rights and protections that a government provides its people.
The Trop decision introduced the principle that the Eighth Amendment “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” But the ruling was limited to citizenship revocation as punishment. It left open whether the government could revoke citizenship for other reasons.
Afroyim v. Rusk: The Right to Keep Citizenship
That question was answered nine years later in Afroyim v. Rusk. Beys Afroyim was a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Poland who had lived in the U.S. for decades. In 1951, while living in Israel, he voted in an Israeli parliamentary election. Under the Nationality Act of 1940, this resulted in automatic loss of citizenship.
When the State Department refused to renew his passport, Afroyim sued, arguing that Congress had no constitutional authority to take away his citizenship without his consent.
The government argued this wasn’t punishment but a necessary exercise of foreign affairs power. Allowing U.S. citizens to vote in foreign elections could cause international embarrassments. This argument had succeeded nine years earlier in Perez v. Brownell, a case with nearly identical facts.
But in a stunning reversal, the Supreme Court sided with Afroyim in a 5-4 decision and explicitly overruled Perez. The Court held that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment completely controls citizenship status and prohibits Congress from involuntarily revoking it.
Justice Hugo Black wrote powerfully: “In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.”
The Afroyim decision established that citizenship is a constitutional right that can only be lost through voluntary relinquishment. Together with Trop, it created the foundation: citizenship is a fundamental right, not a conditional privilege.
The President’s Limited Role
Given these strong constitutional protections, the President’s role in citizenship revocation is highly limited. A President can influence policy and enforcement but cannot act as the final arbiter of who is and isn’t a citizen. Congress makes laws, and federal courts adjudicate individual cases.
Can the President Personally Revoke Citizenship?
No provision in the Constitution or federal law grants the President power to unilaterally strip anyone of citizenship. Legal experts uniformly dismiss such ideas as unconstitutional.
A prominent example occurred when former President Donald Trump suggested he was considering “taking away” the U.S. citizenship of Rosie O’Donnell, who was born in the United States.
Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, noted that the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk prevents the government from taking away citizenship. She affirmed that “the president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born U.S. citizen.” The core American principle, she explained, is that “the people choose the government; the government cannot choose the people.”
The power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization” is explicitly granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution. This includes authority to set terms for acquiring citizenship and, in narrow cases, for revoking it. But the actual revocation process is judicial, carried out by federal courts.
How Presidents Actually Influence Citizenship Policy
While the President cannot personally revoke citizenship, their influence flows through the executive branch, particularly the Department of Justice. The Attorney General, appointed by the President, heads the DOJ and directs all federal prosecutors.
This influence typically works through internal memos and directives that establish enforcement priorities. A June 2025 DOJ memo under the Trump administration directed the department’s Civil Division to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.”
This directive didn’t change the underlying law or create new grounds for revocation. It signaled a shift in resource allocation and institutional focus.
The memo identified priority categories for denaturalization cases, including individuals who pose national security threats, have committed human rights violations or terrorism, or have engaged in fraud. But it also contained a discretionary clause stating that the Civil Division “retains the discretion to pursue cases outside of these categories as it determines appropriate.”
The true presidential power lies in this “weaponization of discretion.” An administration can transform a legal process once reserved for rare, egregious cases into a proactive enforcement tool. By directing DOJ to “maximally pursue” these cases, the executive branch can create uncertainty for the nearly 25 million naturalized citizens in the United States.
This shift from reactive to proactive enforcement, amplified by political rhetoric, effectively creates a “two-tier” system of citizenship where naturalized Americans feel their status is perpetually under review while native-born citizens rest secure.
A President can also use executive orders to influence interpretation of existing law. A hypothetical order could direct federal agencies to cease recognizing the citizenship of U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants by reinterpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.
Such an order wouldn’t have legal force and would face immediate court challenges that would almost certainly succeed based on United States v. Wong Kim Ark precedent. But issuing the order serves as a powerful political statement and can encourage allies in Congress to pursue legislative changes.
Denaturalization: How the Government Can Revoke Citizenship
Denaturalization is the only legal mechanism through which the U.S. government can involuntarily revoke citizenship. It’s a formal judicial process that applies exclusively to naturalized citizens and is based on the principle that citizenship can be nullified if it was obtained unlawfully from the start.
What Is Denaturalization?
Denaturalization is a legal action brought by the U.S. government in federal court to cancel a naturalized citizen’s certificate of citizenship. This process cannot be used against someone born in the United States.
The key aspect is the “relation-back” doctrine. If a court revokes naturalization, the revocation is effective as of the original date of naturalization. In law, the individual was never a U.S. citizen. They revert to the immigration status they held before naturalizing, typically Lawful Permanent Resident status. If that status is also invalid, or if they’ve committed deportable acts, they can be placed in removal proceedings.
Narrow Grounds for Denaturalization
The legal grounds for denaturalization are strictly defined by statute and focus exclusively on defects in the original naturalization process. The government cannot strip citizenship for actions taken after someone becomes a citizen, unless those actions reveal pre-existing fraud.
The two primary grounds are:
Illegal Procurement: This occurs when someone wasn’t statutorily eligible for naturalization when it was granted. This is an objective standard—the government doesn’t need to prove intent to deceive. Examples include:
- Not being a Lawful Permanent Resident for the required period (typically five years, or three for spouses of U.S. citizens)
- Having invalid LPR status due to a void marriage or visa issued in error
- Not meeting the “good moral character” requirement due to undiscovered criminal activity
Concealment or Willful Misrepresentation: This involves intentional deceit. The government must prove someone deliberately lied or hid a “material fact” on their naturalization application.
The Supreme Court clarified this standard in its 2017 decision Maslenjak v. United States. The Court unanimously ruled that the government must prove more than just a false statement. It must demonstrate the lie was material, meaning it had a “natural tendency to influence” the immigration official’s decision.
The Court stated that “small omissions and minor lies” that wouldn’t have affected the naturalization outcome aren’t sufficient grounds for revocation. This serves as a firewall against denaturalization for trivial errors. But the “natural tendency” test isn’t a bright-line rule and leaves room for judicial interpretation.
Other, less common statutory grounds include:
- Joining a designated subversive organization within five years of becoming a citizen
- Receiving a dishonorable military discharge before completing five years of service, if citizenship was obtained through military service
- Refusing to testify before a congressional committee investigating subversive activities within ten years of naturalization
How a Denaturalization Case Works
Denaturalization unfolds as a formal legal battle in federal court, not in immigration court or an administrative agency.
Investigation and Referral: The process typically begins with a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) investigation. Recent investigations have been aided by data-mining initiatives like “Operation Janus,” which cross-references government databases to find discrepancies in immigration records.
If USCIS believes it has sufficient evidence of fraud or illegal procurement, it refers the case to the Department of Justice.
Federal Lawsuit: The DOJ files a civil complaint against the citizen in the federal district court where they last resided. The citizen has 60 days to file a formal answer to the government’s allegations.
High Burden of Proof: Reflecting the gravity of stripping citizenship, the government faces a high burden. It must prove its case by “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt.” This standard is higher than “preponderance of the evidence” in most civil lawsuits, though lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases.
Procedural Realities: Despite the high burden, the process creates significant power imbalances. Because denaturalization is civil, defendants have no constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney if they can’t afford one. There’s no statute of limitations—the government can initiate a case decades after citizenship was granted.
A naturalized citizen, often elderly and having lived in the U.S. most of their life, can be forced into a costly, multi-year legal battle to defend against decades-old allegations. The process itself becomes a form of punishment regardless of outcome.
Life-Altering Consequences
If the government succeeds, the consequences are severe and can affect entire families.
Loss of Citizenship and Deportation: The court issues an order revoking citizenship and canceling the Certificate of Naturalization. The individual is no longer a U.S. citizen and, if they have no other legal basis to remain, becomes subject to deportation.
Impact on Family Members: Loss of citizenship can extend to a spouse or child who obtained citizenship through the denaturalized individual. The outcome depends on the grounds for revocation.
If the parent or spouse’s citizenship was revoked for concealment or willful misrepresentation, any derivative citizens also lose their citizenship, regardless of where they live. If the revocation was for illegal procurement, derivative citizens don’t lose their citizenship.
This creates the devastating possibility that children who have known no other country can suddenly find themselves stripped of citizenship because of a parent’s actions decades earlier.
The History of Denaturalization
Denaturalization has never been static. It has ebbed and flowed with political currents, often reflecting broader anxieties about immigration, national security, and American identity. While legally confined to cases of fraud or illegality, its application has historically targeted specific groups.
Early Use as a Political Weapon
Denaturalization was formally established with the Naturalization Act of 1906, intended to standardize citizenship and combat fraud. But it quickly became a tool for what historian Patrick Weil calls a “cleansing” of the body politic—removing citizens deemed ideologically or racially “un-American.”
Early 20th Century: Denaturalization targeted political radicals like anarchist Emma Goldman, who was denaturalized and deported in 1919. It enforced racial prerequisites for citizenship. In United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), the Supreme Court ruled that Asian Indians weren’t “white persons” and were ineligible for naturalization, leading to denaturalization of 60 to 70 South Asians who had already become citizens.
During World War II, the government targeted members of the pro-Nazi German American Bund.
The Cold War: Denaturalization peaked during the McCarthy era as a weapon against suspected Communists and “subversives.” Between 1907 and 1967, the government filed over 22,000 denaturalization cases.
Post-Afroyim Focus on War Criminals: The Supreme Court’s 1967 Afroyim decision dramatically curtailed this practice. Afterward, denaturalization became rare and was almost exclusively reserved for egregious cases of concealed pasts, primarily involving Nazi war criminals who had lied on immigration applications.
The DOJ’s Office of Special Investigations successfully denaturalized and deported dozens of former concentration camp guards and collaborators, such as John Demjanjuk and Feodor Fedorenko.
Modern Revival and the Two-Tier Debate
In the 21st century, denaturalization has seen significant revival, driven by new technology and shifting political priorities.
Operation Janus: The modern trend began in 2010 under the Obama administration with “Operation Janus,” aimed at digitizing old paper-based fingerprint records. This uncovered that hundreds of individuals with criminal records or outstanding deportation orders had obtained citizenship under different identities because their original records weren’t in searchable databases.
Administrative Expansion: The Trump administration aggressively expanded this foundation. It created a new USCIS office in 2018 to identify denaturalization cases, and in 2020, the DOJ established a dedicated Denaturalization Section. Denaturalization referrals from USCIS to DOJ grew by 600% between 2017 and 2020.
The Biden administration largely maintained this expanded enforcement apparatus, renaming the DOJ unit the “Enforcement Section” but keeping its expanded scope.
This renewed focus has sparked fierce debate about its implications. Critics argue that aggressively pursuing denaturalization for minor issues based on decades-old records creates a “two-tier” system of citizenship. Native-born citizens possess absolute, secure status, while 24.5 million naturalized citizens live knowing their citizenship is conditional and perpetually subject to government review.
How U.S. Citizenship Can Be Lost
The distinction between government revocation and voluntary relinquishment is a primary source of public confusion. Here’s a clear comparison of these fundamentally different processes:
Renouncing Your Citizenship
While the government’s power to revoke citizenship is strictly limited, every U.S. citizen possesses the “inherent right” to voluntarily give it up. This process, known as renunciation or expatriation, is serious and irrevocable with significant legal, financial, and personal consequences.
The Right to Leave
Expatriation is the voluntary act of relinquishing citizenship. The legal foundation is the Expatriation Act of 1868, which declared it to be a “natural and inherent right of all people.”
The cornerstone of modern expatriation law is intent. Following Afroyim v. Rusk, U.S. policy presumes an American citizen intends to retain citizenship, even when performing “potentially expatriating acts” like becoming a citizen of another country or serving in a foreign army.
To lose citizenship, someone must perform such an act voluntarily and with specific intention of giving up U.S. citizenship.
How to Formally Renounce
The most direct way to relinquish citizenship is through formal renunciation under Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This is a highly formalized administrative process.
Location and Procedure: A person must voluntarily appear in person before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer at a U.S. embassy or consulate outside the United States. Renunciation cannot be done by mail, through an agent, or while physically inside the U.S.
The Steps:
- Scheduling an appointment, which can have wait times of many months
- Attending at least two separate interviews with a consular officer designed to confirm full understanding of consequences and voluntary action without coercion
- Completing forms including the “Oath of Renunciation” (Form DS-4080) and “Statement of Understanding” (Form DS-4081)
- Taking the formal Oath of Renunciation before the consular officer
Finality: Once the Department of State approves renunciation and issues a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, the act is final and irrevocable. There’s a narrow exception for individuals who renounce before age 18, who can have citizenship reinstated if they apply within six months of turning 18.
A person can also lose citizenship by performing other potentially expatriating acts listed in INA § 349, such as serving in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities with the U.S., but only if they can prove they did so with specific intent to relinquish citizenship.
The High Cost of Leaving
Voluntarily renouncing U.S. citizenship carries serious and often costly consequences.
Administrative Fee: There’s a non-refundable administrative fee of $2,350 to process renunciation paperwork.
Risk of Statelessness: The U.S. government generally won’t allow renunciation unless someone can prove they hold citizenship in another country. This prevents becoming “stateless”—a person without legal protection of any nation. Statelessness can lead to profound hardships, including inability to travel, work, own property, or access basic services.
The Expatriation Tax (Exit Tax): Perhaps the most complex consequence is the U.S. tax obligation. Renouncing citizenship doesn’t extinguish tax responsibilities to the IRS. Someone who renounces may be classified as a “covered expatriate” and become subject to a severe “exit tax.”
A person is a covered expatriate if they meet any of three criteria:
- Net Worth Test: A net worth of $2 million or more on the date of expatriation
- Tax Liability Test: Average annual net income tax liability for the five preceding years that exceeds an inflation-adjusted threshold ($190,000 for 2023)
- Compliance Test: Failure to certify on Form 8854 that they’ve complied with all U.S. federal tax obligations for the five preceding years
If deemed a “covered expatriate,” the IRS imposes a “mark-to-market” tax. All worldwide assets are treated as if sold for fair market value the day before expatriation. The individual must pay capital gains tax on net appreciation of those assets, subject to an inflation-adjusted exclusion amount ($821,000 in 2023). This can result in tax bills of millions of dollars for high-net-worth individuals.
Other Consequences: After renouncing, a former citizen must obtain a visa to visit the U.S. and can be barred from entry if the government determines they renounced for tax avoidance purposes. Renunciation doesn’t absolve prior financial obligations incurred in the U.S., such as child support payments or criminal liability.
This gauntlet of administrative hurdles, financial penalties, and logistical complexities reveals a clear policy: while the U.S. recognizes the right of citizens to leave, it doesn’t encourage it.
The process is deliberately structured to be difficult and costly, underscoring the enduring power and global reach of U.S. law, which extends authority over citizens—and even former citizens—far beyond its borders.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.