Can You Lose American Citizenship?

I. Introduction

American citizenship is often considered one of the most secure legal statuses in the world, conferring powerful rights such as the right to reside and work in the United States, access to protection by the U.S. government, and the right to participate in the democratic process. However, despite its durability, it is not an immutable status. While involuntary loss of citizenship is rare and strictly circumscribed by law and jurisprudence, both voluntary and certain legally defined acts can lead to expatriation. This essay explores the legal framework governing the loss of U.S. citizenship, distinguishing between voluntary relinquishment and revocation due to conduct deemed incompatible with continued allegiance to the United States.

II. Constitutional Foundations and the Right to Citizenship

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly enumerate the conditions under which citizenship can be lost. However, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This provision affirms both jus soli (right of the soil) and naturalization as pathways to citizenship, while implying that such status is protected under constitutional law.

The landmark decision in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) profoundly influenced this area of law. The Supreme Court ruled that the government may not involuntarily strip a person of citizenship without their voluntary consent, stating, “In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.” This decision significantly curtailed earlier practices that allowed the State Department or Congress to revoke citizenship on grounds such as voting in a foreign election or extended residence abroad.

III. Voluntary Relinquishment of Citizenship

A. Statutory Mechanisms

Under Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1481, U.S. citizenship can be lost if a citizen voluntarily commits certain acts with the intention of relinquishing nationality. These acts include:

Naturalizing in a foreign state after age 18.
Taking an oath or declaration of allegiance to another country.
Serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities with the U.S.
Accepting employment with a foreign government.
Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer.
Committing an act of treason or attempting to overthrow the government by force.

The key criterion is intent. U.S. courts and the Department of State require clear evidence that the individual intended to relinquish citizenship at the time of the act. This standard stems directly from Afroyim and later reaffirmed in Vance v. Terrazas (1980), where the Supreme Court held that intent to relinquish must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and not presumed solely from the act itself.

B. Formal Renunciation

A citizen may renounce their citizenship by appearing before a U.S. consular officer in a foreign country and signing an oath of renunciation. This process is typically irreversible and includes significant consequences, such as loss of re-entry rights, tax implications under the Expatriation Tax (IRC § 877A), and potential designation as stateless if the individual has no other nationality.

IV. Involuntary Loss and Denaturalization

A. Denaturalization

1. Definition and Legal Distinction

Denaturalization refers to the legal process through which the U.S. government revokes the citizenship of a naturalized individual. It is essential to distinguish this from other forms of citizenship loss—such as voluntary renunciation or expatriation through certain actions with intent to relinquish. Denaturalization applies exclusively to individuals who obtained U.S. citizenship through naturalization, not to those born on U.S. soil under the Fourteenth Amendment. Once denaturalized, an individual is regarded as having never lawfully acquired citizenship and is rendered an alien, subject to immigration enforcement, including removal.

2. Legal Foundations

The statutory authority for denaturalization arises from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 340(a), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). The statute authorizes the federal government—through the Department of Justice—to bring civil proceedings in federal district court to revoke naturalized citizenship on certain grounds. These grounds are primarily rooted in fraud, illegality, or misrepresentation:

Illegality of Naturalization: Citizenship was procured in violation of law.
Concealment of a Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation: The applicant deliberately withheld or distorted information material to the decision to grant naturalization.
Membership in Subversive Organizations: The individual became or remained affiliated with entities advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, such as the Communist Party (historically) or terrorist groups.
Disloyalty or Unlawful Conduct Prior to Naturalization: Conduct inconsistent with constitutional values or federal laws at the time of naturalization.

3. Standard of Proof and Judicial Safeguards

Because denaturalization deprives an individual of a fundamental status and accompanying rights, the Supreme Court has imposed strict standards of proof. In Schneiderman v. United States (1943), the Court held that denaturalization must be based on “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence. This standard is more stringent than the preponderance of the evidence used in ordinary civil cases but less than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold used in criminal trials.

Further judicial protections include:

Due Process Rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Right to a Full Trial, including access to counsel, the ability to present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses.
Appellate Review of denaturalization decisions by federal appellate courts.

In Fedorenko v. United States (1981), the Supreme Court emphasized that the courts must not “excuse” or overlook any material misrepresentations, regardless of the applicant’s motivations or the degree of personal hardship caused by denaturalization.

4. Denaturalization Procedure

The denaturalization process unfolds in several steps:

Investigation: Typically initiated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Civil Complaint: Filed in federal district court by the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation.
Litigation: The government bears the burden of proving the case to the required standard. The naturalized citizen may present a defense, request discovery, and contest the allegations.
Judgment: If the court finds the case proven, it issues a decree revoking citizenship. The individual reverts to their prior immigration status—often as a legal permanent resident—or becomes undocumented.

In rare cases, denaturalization may be pursued through criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1425 (unlawful procurement of citizenship or naturalization), leading to imprisonment and automatic revocation upon conviction.

5. Historical Context and Use

Denaturalization has a troubling historical pedigree. In the early and mid-20th century, it was often wielded as a political weapon. During the Red Scare, for example, naturalized citizens suspected of Communist affiliations were stripped of their status. Likewise, Operation Denaturalization in the late 20th century targeted former Nazis and collaborators who had concealed their wartime affiliations during the naturalization process.

However, courts gradually curtailed these practices, especially after Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), which emphasized the constitutional sanctity of citizenship and rejected involuntary expatriation. The focus shifted toward procedural fairness, evidentiary rigor, and respect for due process.

6. Modern Applications and Controversies

In recent decades, denaturalization has been revived, albeit in more constrained and methodical form. Under the Obama and Trump administrations, DOJ and DHS increased efforts to identify cases where individuals obtained naturalization fraudulently—particularly through Operation Janus, a program targeting naturalized citizens who had previously been ordered deported under false identities.

Under this initiative, hundreds of cases have been referred for investigation, although actual denaturalizations remain limited in number. Critics argue that such efforts risk creating a climate of uncertainty and distrust, particularly among immigrant communities, while supporters emphasize the need to maintain the integrity of the naturalization system.

Moreover, contemporary denaturalization efforts have raised concerns over potential misuse, particularly if applied discriminatorily or used as a tool of political retribution. Legal scholars and civil rights advocates caution that an overzealous approach risks undermining the sense of permanence and security that citizenship is meant to confer.

7. Limitations and Protections Against Arbitrary Denaturalization

Several legal and constitutional limitations safeguard against arbitrary or unjust denaturalization:

Birthright Citizenship is Immune: Courts have held that denaturalization statutes do not apply to those born in the U.S., reaffirming the constitutional guarantee under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Retroactivity Is Disfavored: Misconduct occurring after naturalization—unless part of the application fraud—is generally not grounds for denaturalization.
No Revocation for Minor Errors: Courts require that the misrepresentation be material—that is, likely to influence the decision to grant naturalization. Trivial mistakes or honest misunderstandings do not meet the threshold.
Appeals and Judicial Oversight: All denaturalization decisions are subject to appellate review, providing an additional layer of protection.

Denaturalization is a powerful, yet narrowly confined legal mechanism designed to protect the integrity of the naturalization process. While its constitutional limitations are clear, its use continues to raise delicate questions about the balance between national security, rule of law, and the inviolability of the bond between citizen and state. When applied with judicial restraint and procedural fairness, denaturalization can serve a legitimate function; when used coercively or politically, it risks eroding the very principles it claims to defend.

B. National Security and War-Time Provisions

1. Introduction: The Tension Between Security and Citizenship

Throughout U.S. history, times of war, conflict, and national crisis have provoked legal and political efforts to redefine the obligations of citizenship. The notion that loyalty to the United States is a core expectation of citizenship has occasionally been invoked to justify the revocation of naturalized status—or even discussions of stripping birthright citizenship—on grounds of disloyalty, treason, or terrorism. These efforts have consistently raised profound constitutional questions, especially in the post-Afroyim v. Rusk era, where the judiciary has been resolute in protecting citizenship as a fundamental and inalienable right, not subject to the government’s discretion.

Still, wartime exigencies and national security concerns have prompted legislative and executive efforts to create mechanisms for expatriation or denaturalization tied to national allegiance. This section examines the historical context, legislative attempts, constitutional limitations, and contemporary debates surrounding these provisions.

2. Historical Background: Citizenship and Allegiance in Wartime

A. World War I and II Era

During World War I and II, the U.S. government viewed allegiance and loyalty as paramount to national cohesion. Congress enacted statutes that allowed for the revocation of citizenship of individuals who served in foreign armed forces, voted in foreign elections, or acted contrary to U.S. interests. In particular, the Nationality Act of 1940 and earlier versions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) included provisions that permitted expatriation for:

Taking up arms against the U.S.
Joining subversive organizations.
Declaring allegiance to enemy states.

For decades, these provisions were interpreted in a way that allowed for involuntary loss of citizenship based purely on conduct—even without the individual’s consent. However, the Supreme Court eventually rejected this expansive approach in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), holding that citizenship could not be involuntarily taken away without the individual’s intent.

B. The Cold War and McCarthy Era

During the Cold War, the perceived threat of Communist infiltration led to heightened scrutiny of immigrants and naturalized citizens. The Internal Security Act of 1950 and related laws were used to target individuals suspected of subversive activity. The government frequently attempted to denaturalize those alleged to have concealed prior affiliations with the Communist Party or totalitarian regimes. Yet, courts began to push back, particularly in Schneiderman v. United States (1943), emphasizing the sanctity of citizenship and the necessity of due process.

3. Modern Legislative Proposals and Attempts at Security-Based Expatriation

In the 21st century, especially post-9/11, Congress and some executive branches revived interest in using citizenship law as a counterterrorism tool. Various legislative initiatives have sought to create mechanisms for stripping citizenship from individuals involved in terrorism or hostile acts abroad.

A. Expatriate Terrorist Act (Proposed)

First introduced in 2014, the Expatriate Terrorist Act (ETA) proposed that U.S. citizens who voluntarily joined or provided material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations should be presumed to have intended to relinquish their citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a). The bill drew bipartisan attention during the rise of ISIS, particularly concerning Americans who traveled to Syria or Iraq to join terrorist groups.

Although framed as aligning with existing expatriation statutes (especially § 1481(a)(3) and (a)(7)), the ETA failed to pass, largely due to constitutional concerns:

Due Process Concerns: Critics argued that the bill lacked sufficient procedural protections and risked administrative abuse.
Vagueness and Overbreadth: The definitions of “material support” and “engagement” with terrorist groups were seen as too expansive.
Statelessness Risks: The bill risked violating international norms against arbitrary or statelessness-inducing citizenship deprivation.

B. ENEMY Expatriation Act (Proposed 2012)

Another legislative proposal, the Enemy Expatriation Act, sought to authorize the revocation of U.S. citizenship for individuals engaged in hostilities against the United States or who provided material support to enemy forces. The Act was similarly criticized as constitutionally overbroad and ultimately failed to advance in Congress.

Despite the failure of new legislation, the existing framework under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a) still permits expatriation if a citizen:

Takes up arms against the United States.
Serves in the military of a foreign state engaged in hostilities with the U.S.
Formally renounces citizenship during time of war.

These provisions require voluntariness and intent—a high legal threshold established by Afroyim and clarified in Vance v. Terrazas (1980), where the Supreme Court reiterated that the government must prove intent to relinquish citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence.

However, the mere act of engaging with hostile foreign groups is not sufficient for expatriation unless accompanied by an express and voluntary intent to renounce U.S. nationality.

5. Judicial Doctrine: Resistance to National Security Exception

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently rebuffed arguments that national security justifies abridging citizenship rights without full procedural protections. In Trop v. Dulles (1958), the Court struck down a provision that stripped citizenship from a military deserter, declaring that “citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior.”

Justice Warren famously wrote:

“The expatriation of a citizen as a punishment for crime is barred by the Eighth Amendment.”

This ruling laid the groundwork for treating citizenship as inviolable, even in times of national emergency or crisis, unless voluntarily relinquished through lawful means. The decision also signaled the Court’s skepticism toward the use of citizenship revocation as a political or symbolic punishment.

6. Security-Based Denaturalization in Practice

While loss of citizenship based on war-time statutes is rare, security-based denaturalization continues through civil litigation. For instance, individuals who concealed past terrorist affiliations, war crimes, or membership in subversive organizations may be subject to revocation under INA § 340.

Notable examples include:

Former Bosnian Serb soldiers who failed to disclose participation in ethnic cleansing campaigns during the Balkan conflicts.
Individuals who participated in genocidal activities in Rwanda, later discovered by DHS forensic units.
Naturalized individuals who concealed material support to terrorist organizations prior to naturalization.

Such cases proceed under strict evidentiary standards and often require extensive intergovernmental investigation.

7. Ethical and Political Implications

The use of citizenship law as a security tool invites serious ethical and political concerns:

Is citizenship a conditional privilege or an inalienable right?
Can democratic societies reconcile national security with civil liberties without eroding the foundations of belonging and equality?
Should states risk producing stateless individuals in pursuit of symbolic justice?

These questions remain unresolved and provoke passionate debate. The global trend—visible in Europe, the UK, and Australia—is toward conditional citizenship, especially for dual nationals suspected of terrorism. The U.S., by contrast, has remained more restrained due to constitutional safeguards and the weight of historical jurisprudence.

National security has long tested the bounds of American citizenship law. While past wartime efforts permitted the deprivation of citizenship based on hostile conduct, the modern constitutional framework—anchored in Afroyim, Trop, and Terrazas—recognizes citizenship as a deeply protected status, not subject to forfeiture absent voluntary, intentional renunciation. Contemporary efforts to tie citizenship to allegiance in times of geopolitical tension are often more symbolic than effective and must navigate a dense thicket of due process, proportionality, and international human rights norms. Ultimately, the legal system’s resistance to security-based expatriation underscores a commitment to the permanence and dignity of civic belonging.

V. Statelessness and International Norms

Loss of citizenship also engages international human rights law. The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which the United States is not a party but remains influenced by, provides that individuals should not be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality. The U.S., though acting outside formal treaty obligations in this domain, generally seeks to avoid creating stateless persons.

Moreover, due process principles under U.S. law prohibit arbitrary or retroactive loss of citizenship. Courts are generally reluctant to accept arguments that would lead to de facto statelessness, especially where the individual has committed no act suggesting disloyalty or falsehood.

VI. Contemporary Controversies and Practical Considerations

In recent years, the voluntary renunciation of citizenship has seen a modest rise, especially among high-net-worth individuals seeking to avoid U.S. tax obligations. The so-called “exit tax” imposed under IRC § 877A applies to those deemed “covered expatriates,” and has led to public debate over whether citizenship is increasingly viewed as a fiscal burden by some rather than a civic commitment.

Additionally, cases involving dual nationals who engage in activities abroad—such as military service or political participation—continue to raise questions about the boundaries of permissible conduct without endangering one’s citizenship.

VII. Recent Attempts to Restrict American Citizenship: The Trump Administration’s Agenda

1. Ideological Framework: Citizenship as Conditional Privilege

The Trump administration’s approach to citizenship was driven by a political and ideological redefinition of what it means to be American. Citizenship, rather than being viewed as a birthright or a culmination of legal and cultural integration, was increasingly framed as a conditional privilege—one that could be withheld, delayed, or even revoked based on ideological alignment, national origin, or security considerations.

This shift was embedded in a broader populist-nationalist narrative that emphasized:

National security over multiculturalism.
“America First” exceptionalism.
Fear of demographic change and “replacement.”
Hostility toward immigration, particularly from Latin America, Muslim-majority countries, and Africa.

Within this context, the administration employed multiple strategies to reduce the number of individuals granted or retaining citizenship—both substantively and procedurally.

2. Restrictive Naturalization Policies and Procedural Barriers

A. Slowing Down Naturalization

Through bureaucratic tactics, the Trump administration deliberately slowed down the naturalization process:

Increased Background Checks: USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) implemented stricter vetting procedures, lengthening wait times and increasing denials.
Request for Evidence (RFE) Expansion: Applicants were more frequently issued RFEs for minor or unclear documentation, effectively delaying their cases.
Fee Increases: A proposed fee increase (later blocked by courts) would have made naturalization unaffordable for many low-income applicants. The naturalization application fee was slated to increase by over 80%.
Interview Backlogs: The administration underfunded USCIS staff responsible for naturalization interviews, creating massive delays.

These changes, though administrative in form, reflected a deeper intention to discourage naturalization by making it financially burdensome, legally complex, and emotionally uncertain.

B. Military Naturalization Rollbacks

Traditionally, lawful permanent residents serving honorably in the U.S. military have been eligible for an expedited path to citizenship. However, under Trump:

The Department of Defense ended a long-standing policy that allowed new recruits to begin the naturalization process after basic training.
Requirements for continuous service and background screening were tightened, leading to a drastic decline in military naturalizations.

This move was symbolically powerful, suggesting that even military service was no longer a sufficient sign of loyalty or assimilation.

3. Operation Janus and Renewed Denaturalization Efforts

Under Trump, the Department of Justice and DHS revived and expanded Operation Janus and Operation Second Look, two interagency initiatives designed to identify and denaturalize individuals who may have obtained U.S. citizenship unlawfully.

Operation Janus targeted individuals who had committed immigration fraud, particularly those who failed to disclose deportation orders or criminal records under alternate identities.
Thousands of files were flagged, with the intent to initiate denaturalization proceedings on a larger scale than ever before.

In 2020, USCIS even created a new office dedicated to denaturalization, known as the Denaturalization Section within the DOJ’s Civil Division. Though civil in nature, this initiative was criticized for attempting to criminalize the naturalization process retroactively, especially when no material misrepresentation was evident.

While the total number of denaturalizations remained relatively low (several dozen per year), the symbolic message was chilling—citizenship was no longer permanent if the government later decided to scrutinize one’s past.

4. Assault on Birthright Citizenship

Perhaps the most ideologically charged move by the Trump administration was its direct challenge to birthright citizenship, long considered sacrosanct under the Fourteenth Amendment.

A. Executive Order Threat

President Trump repeatedly announced his intent to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Though never enacted, the threat alone reflected a desire to reinterpret constitutional principles via executive fiat.

Legal scholars from across the spectrum warned that such an executive order would be unconstitutional and would provoke immediate litigation. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—“All persons born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens”—has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to include nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental status.

B. Administrative Reinterpretations

Even without executive action, Trump’s administration issued administrative memoranda that attempted to restrict citizenship transmission to children born abroad to U.S. citizens under certain conditions. These changes complicated the application of jus sanguinis, particularly affecting military and State Department employees stationed overseas.

These reinterpretations did not carry the force of law but demonstrated a willingness to redefine fundamental aspects of national belonging through administrative tools.

5. Immigration Rhetoric and the Politicization of Citizenship

Throughout the administration, citizenship was invoked as both a tool of exclusion and a marker of loyalty. This rhetoric included:

Describing certain immigrants as “invaders” or “animals.”
Suggesting that immigrants from “shithole countries” were less desirable.
Equating foreign birth with disloyalty or terrorism.
Promoting a “merit-based” immigration system that prioritized wealth and education—implicitly favoring European and Asian immigrants over Latin American and African populations.

These narratives delegitimized the inclusive spirit of American citizenship and reinforced nativist ideas that had long haunted the U.S. political tradition.

6. Civic Consequences and Legal Pushback

Many of these policies faced legal challenges and reversals:

Courts blocked the naturalization fee increases as arbitrary and capricious.
The denaturalization office was met with criticism and under Biden has seen a halt in expansion.
Proposals to end birthright citizenship remain legally untenable under prevailing constitutional doctrine.

However, the long-term damage may be less legal than psychological: immigrant communities experienced heightened fear and alienation; naturalized citizens worried about their security; and the naturalization process was increasingly perceived not as a rite of inclusion but as a provisional status subject to scrutiny.

The Redefinition of Citizenship Through Restriction

The Trump administration’s efforts to minimize the granting and permanence of U.S. citizenship represented a historic inflection point. Though many of the policies were administrative rather than statutory, and though constitutional jurisprudence held firm against the most extreme proposals, the broader cultural and institutional shift was undeniable. Citizenship—once a promise of belonging and protection—was increasingly framed as a conditional reward for ideological conformity, loyalty, and national origin.

In this context, the Trump era posed a challenge not only to immigration policy but to the very moral and philosophical underpinnings of American civic identity. The efforts to restrict citizenship served as a mirror, reflecting anxieties about demographic change, cultural integration, and national security. Whether these anxieties continue to shape policy in the future will depend on whether subsequent administrations choose to reaffirm citizenship as an inclusive right or preserve its conditionality as a mechanism of control.

VII. Conclusion

While American citizenship is profoundly stable and constitutionally protected, it is not absolutely permanent in all cases. Voluntary renunciation remains the primary and most straightforward route to losing one’s citizenship, provided it is done knowingly and with clear intent. In contrast, involuntary loss—either through denaturalization or statutorily-defined acts—is rare and tightly constrained by due process protections. The evolution of this area of law reveals a deep tension between national security, individual liberty, and the evolving nature of civic belonging in a globalized world.

Can You Lose American Citizenship

Published by Tsvety on July 18, 2025July 18, 2025

Table of Contents