The United States government has taken a decisive step toward expanding denaturalisation efforts against certain naturalised citizens, following the emergence of a Justice Department memo that urges federal attorneys to actively pursue cases where individuals may have obtained citizenship through deception or have since committed serious crimes.
Dated June 11, the internal memo, revealed in a report by The Guardian on Monday, outlines guidelines for prioritising civil denaturalisation cases. The directive targets individuals who are alleged to have either “illegally procured” their citizenship or misrepresented or concealed key facts during their naturalisation process. According to the document, civil proceedings—not criminal trials—will be the main legal route, which means affected individuals will not be entitled to government-provided legal representation. Additionally, the government faces a significantly lower burden of proof in civil cases than in criminal prosecutions.
The memo identifies ten priority categories for denaturalisation. These include individuals involved in war crimes, extrajudicial killings, serious human rights violations, or those linked to gangs, organised crime, or other serious criminal activities. The document points to an estimated 25 million naturalised United States citizens—people born outside the country who acquired citizenship through the naturalisation process—as potential subjects of review, sparking fears among immigrant communities and legal experts.
United State Justice Department Memo Sparks Concern Over Denaturalisation Efforts
Immigration attorneys and civil rights advocates are raising red flags about the implications of this approach. Critics argue that the use of civil litigation to revoke citizenship creates a legal loophole that strips away due process protections from those targeted. “It is kind of, in a way, trying to create a second class of United States citizens,” said Sameera Hafiz, policy director of the Immigration Legal Resource Center, in an interview with NPR. “You’re removing key rights from individuals based on a legal technicality, often rooted in decades-old paperwork or misunderstandings.”
Unlike in criminal court, civil defendants are not guaranteed a lawyer, and the evidence required to prove wrongdoing is much less stringent. This leaves individuals vulnerable, especially those who lack the resources to hire private attorneys to defend their citizenship status.
Concerns over the memo’s timing and broader implications are compounded by ongoing shifts in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Traditionally responsible for addressing racial and civil rights injustices, the division is reportedly undergoing a radical transformation. Under the current administration’s executive directives, the division has taken on new priorities, including dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in public institutions and opposing access to gender-affirming healthcare for transgender individuals.
These priorities have drawn criticism from civil rights groups and sparked controversy in the academic and legal communities. On Friday, University of Virginia president Jim Ryan resigned amid a Justice Department investigation into the university’s DEI programs and its use of race and ethnicity in scholarship and admissions decisions.
In a rare move, the Justice Department also recently filed lawsuits against 15 United States district attorneys in Maryland for obstructing the deportation of migrants challenging their removal orders, another signal of the administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement agenda.
The department’s internal dynamics reflect increasing turmoil. According to a recent National Public Radio report, roughly 250 attorneys—about 70% of the division’s legal staff—resigned or left their posts between January and May 2025. Many former staffers cited moral and professional concerns over the shift in mission and the pressure to abandon longstanding civil rights priorities.
The denaturalisation effort is already producing tangible effects. On June 13, a United States judge revoked the citizenship of Elliott Duke, a military veteran originally from the United Kingdom. Duke had been convicted of distributing child sexual abuse material and failed to disclose this during his naturalisation process. While the severity of Duke’s crime is not in dispute, attorneys argue that such cases set a precedent that could be expanded to less clear-cut situations, especially when the government’s evidentiary standards are relaxed in civil court.
The broader legal community is warning that these efforts could open the door to a future where citizenship—long considered permanent and secure—can be revoked more easily. They caution that naturalised citizens, even those who have lived in the United States for decades, may find themselves at risk of losing everything due to missteps, misunderstandings, or shifting political priorities.
As debate intensifies, immigration attorneys, advocacy groups, and lawmakers are calling for greater transparency and urging Congress to ensure that all United States citizens, regardless of how they obtained their status, are afforded equal protection under the law.
Source- Punchng
