US Citizenship Law: Revocation of Citizenship

This article looks at the topic of revocation of citizenship in the US, whether it is legally possible and what the law specifically states.

In our previous article, we looked at the history of American immigration law through the lens of US denaturalisation, how these cases were prosecuted under various presidents, how these laws are changing under Trump, and how they could change in the future.

Now we’re going to look in more detail at a related hot-button issue, the notion of revocation of citizenship in the United States.

Is revocation of citizenship possible in America? Can a president really denaturalise or deport citizens? What legal protections do citizens have? And what happens under Executive Order 14160? Answers to these questions, and more, can be found below.  

US Citizenship & Trump: Watch This Space

At the ripe old age of 79, President Trump shows no signs of slowing down.

The world’s press, meanwhile, is often breathless trying to keep up. For writers, Trump’s mercurial nature is both a blessing and a curse.

Sure, there’s always a story to write about, but once you’re one paragraph in, either the story has either changed completely, or it’s already old news. 

With Donald J Trump in the White House, slow news days just aren’t a thing. 

Since becoming President, Donald Trump: 

• Threatened to end birthright citizenship
• Became best buds with Elon Musk
• Held a bizarre White House press conference with Elon Musk
• Reignited his feud with Rosie O’Donnell
• Fell out with Elon Musk
• Threatened to deport Rosie O’Donnell 
• Threatened to deport Elon Musk
• Started a public feud with Jimmy Kimmel  
• Started a public feud with Zohran Mamdani 
• Threatened to deport Zohran Mamdani
• Made up with Zohran Mamdani 
• Held a bizarre White House press conference with Zohran Mamdani 
• Announced a travel ban on 19 countries 
• Took his birthright citizenship challenge to the Supreme Court

In this article, we’re going to attempt to unpack ALL of these points, and do so quickly, before DJT changes the story again. 

Let’s start with Rosie O’Donnell and Jimmy Kimmel, who previously featured in our article on celebrities with second citizenships.

Now, just in case you’re planning on also making enemies with the president, you might want to have a backup plan first.

Comedians they might be, but O’Donnell and Kimmel were nonetheless wise enough to obtain citizenship by descent as their plan B option. Rosie O’Donnell now has Irish citizenship, while Kimmel has Italian. (Think you might also be eligible for citizenship by descent, get in touch and let’s explore together.)

On the flipside, we have Elon Musk, the South African-born tech billionaire turned Buddy-in-Chief turned White House pariah. Since the pair’s public spat following the Big Beautiful Bill, Trump’s been threatening to tear up Musk’s US citizenship, along with his enormous government contracts, and send him packing back to South Africa. 

Trump later made similar threats to mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, before flipping and deciding they were best pals. (That one had us all scratching our heads.)

No doubt you’ve noticed the common thread in each of these incidents is citizenship.

You may also have noticed that Trump has amped up his rhetoric on citizenship in recent months, all of which begs the question – is revocation of citizenship even possible?

Well, yes and no.

US Citizenship & Denaturalisation

If you’re born a US citizen that’s it, case closed, you are a US citizen for life, unless you choose to relinquish or renounce your citizenship.

An individual who becomes a US citizen through naturalisation, however, can, in theory, be stripped of citizenship through a process called denaturalisation, though only in rare cases. 

The first way a citizen can be denaturalised is by deliberately lying or omitting key information on one’s citizenship application. 

This can range from providing false details to failing to disclose membership of, or association with, a prohibited organisation – e.g. a communist party, criminal organisation or terrorist group.

The second way a citizen can be denaturalised is if they fail to comply with the requirements of their citizenship, such as maintaining a physical presence and being a lawful resident. 

These requirements also include the need to maintain “good moral character”, as such, grounds for denaturalisation include:

• Defrauding the US government
• Committing violent acts
• Criminal gang activity
• Sex offences
• Human trafficking 
• War crimes

Denaturalisation cases are handled by the Department of Justice (DOJ), but only after they determine there is sufficient evidence to pursue the case. 

Calling someone a communist or terrorist isn’t enough. The US government would need to make a strong case and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Instances of denaturalisation were common during WW2 and the subsequent Red Scare, but the constitution was since fortified to prevent abuse. 

In 1967, the US Supreme Court ruled (Afroyim v Rusk) that revocation of citizenship could not be used as a political tool, limiting the use of denaturalisation.

A sitting president would need the US Supreme Court to reverse that prior ruling, a task which could prove difficult even for Trump.

Despite having a conservative majority, including three judges appointed by Trump, there is no guarantee the Supreme Court would side with him on this issue.

Which may well explain why the president has opted not to challenge denaturalisation law and set his sights on birthright citizenship instead.

Trump’s Challenge: Executive Order 14160

In January 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14160, an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children who are either:

• Born in the US to undocumented/unauthorised immigrants 

• Born to parents who are legal temporary residents (e.g. temporary work visas, student visas, tourist visas, etc.), but do not have permanent residence.

Trump’s executive order first faces an uphill legal battle, which, following multiple state challenges, his is now taking all the way to the Supreme Court. 

Trump’s challenge, while audacious, is nothing new. US presidents have a long history of challenging the very definition of what an American citizen is. 

What’s different here, however, is the scale of the reversal proposed. Trump is challenging a former Supreme Court ruling, the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case of 1898, which has been a cornerstone of US law for 127 years.

This ruling was, in turn, based upon the Fourteenth Amendment, which has stood for 157 years, since the end of the US Civil War.

The Fourteenth Amendment fully established the right of jus soli, a principle of English Common Law, which establishes citizenship based on place of birth, rather than by blood.

It extends citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Trump and his team are not attempting to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment or alter it in any way, instead, they’re laser-focused on the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

They argue that non-US citizens without permanent residence status are citizens of a foreign nation and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, ergo, the right of jus soli cannot apply to their offspring, who also owe their allegiance elsewhere.

If Trump does win out and Executive Order 14160 does become law, it would remove the right of jus soli, making citizenship conditional upon immigration status.

Children born after February 19th, 2025, would therefore no longer be automatically considered citizens and instead their citizenship would be contingent upon whether or not their parents were also citizens or legal, full-time residents.

Such a ruling would certainly result in a massive disruption both to families and to federal employees tasked with dealing with a massive rise in immigration cases.

It should be pointed out, however, that it still would not allow the government the ability to revoke birthright citizenship from anyone born before the effective date of the Executive Order.

Revocation of Citizenship: The Truth

Trump might not like it, but legally, his hands are tied. 

Overturning a ruling like United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has stood for over a century, is a difficult, though not impossible, task, especially given his current Supreme Court advantage.

Gaining complete executive power over citizenship, however, is a completely different matter. It would likely result in decades of legal battles with a severely limited chance of success. There are just too many hurdles to clear, starting with the Supreme Court.

Consider Roe v Wade; whatever your thoughts on it may be, the actual effort required to overturn it was immense, lasting almost half a century.

In this instance, however, Trump would have to overturn multiple Supreme Court rulings, most notably the 1967 Supreme Court ruling of Afroyim v. Rusk, which specifically prevents the government from revoking citizenship against a citizen’s will.

The Supreme Court could well side with Trump on this issue, too, but in doing so, they would completely redefine America’s legal definition of citizenship, so they may well be more reluctant to side with Trump this time around.

With Executive Order 14160, Trump and his team are challenging the Fourteenth Amendment to redefine birthright citizenship. Even if passed, however, the government cannot simply revoke citizenship without due process.

For complete executive control over citizenship, therefore, a president would need to challenge the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process, and that’s a much tougher sell.

Even for sympathetic conservative judges this may well be considered a step too far, raising fears of executive overreach.

If not, and the Supreme Court rules with Trump, the next obstacle is Congress. While presidents often seek to test the limits of executive power, they are held in check by Congress, since any proposed changes to existing legislation would need the approval of both houses.

This is America’s fabled system of checks and balances, serving the American public for almost 250 years.

And even if, by some strategic masterstroke, all of these were bypassed, there is no guarantee that states would comply, or that federal workers wouldn’t revolt.

Deportation, meanwhile, is a two-way street. It requires one country to deport, and another to accept, and many countries may simply decide not to cooperate.

All the while, there would be more resistance, more protests, more international outcry. Not that Trump cares about that, but it would nonetheless add further layers of resistance. 

Trump knows that, as do his team of legal advisors.

A common phrase with Trump supporters is that the president is “playing four-dimensional chess”. True, there is a clear immigration strategy, but as far as the notion of revocation of citizenship is concerned, the game he’s playing is poker, which is all about knowing when to call, when to fold – and when to bluff.

Why Is Trump Threatening Revocation Of Citizenship?

Trump isn’t the first president to stress test immigration law, and he certainly won’t be the last. 

Part of Trump’s strategy is to identify weakness and then exploit it. If he doesn’t find it, he moves on. No doubt he’s aware, since his first term, how difficult it is to revoke American citizenship. 

So why does he keep talking about it? 

One word: Leverage. 

For a man like Trump, who views everything in transactional terms, the threat can be just as powerful as the act itself. A throwaway phrase like “we might look into that” sounds innocuous, but to those in the line of fire the underlying message is clear – be careful, or we’ll investigate you. 

For most people, that’s enough of a deterrent, even if your citizenship application is 100% above board, it’s human nature to second guess and think, “but what if I’m wrong?” 

If English is not your first language, that worry increases. An error here, an omission there, suddenly it’s you versus an army of determined bureaucrats trained to sniff out irregularities. 

It’s an intimidating prospect – and that’s the whole idea. 

Mamdani likely doesn’t have much to worry about, but Musk might. According to reports in the Washington Post, CNN, and elsewhere, Musk may have worked in the US while on a student visa. 

If these allegations are true, and he failed to disclose them on his citizenship application, this could well be grounds for denaturalisation. 

So let’s explore that hypothetical scenario now, as the potential ramifications are nothing short of epic. 

Hypothetical Scenario: Trump Denaturalises Elon Musk

The allegations are that Musk worked while on a student visa but never disclosed it when applying for citizenship.

Given Musk’s cavalier attitude to rules and regulations, it’s certainly possible.

It would also make for the trial of the century – the president of the most powerful country in the world, versus the world’s richest man. 

Not that Trump could start proceedings directly, he would first have to direct the Department of Homeland Security to investigate the matter. They would then pass that along to the Department of Justice, which would then commence denaturalisation proceedings. 

If successful, the next step would likely be deportation. Though Musk would no doubt appeal first and take his case all the way to the Supreme Court – and who wouldn’t want front row seats to watch that?

Like many of his fellow tech billionaires, Elon Musk has multiple citizenships. 

He was born in South Africa and also has Canadian citizenship. It’s most likely the former would accept him, were he to be denaturalised and deported from the US. So, unlike many deportees, he has options. 

While this cushions the blow considerably, the worst is yet to come. 

Having battled with Homeland Security, the DOJ and the Supreme Court, it’s now time for the IRS to enter the picture. 

That’s right, it’s time for the dreaded US Exit Tax. 

Anyone leaving the United States is potentially liable to pay the Exit Tax. It all depends on whether or not you are a covered expatriate. 

One criterion for being deemed a covered expatriate is having a net worth of $2 million or more on the date of your expatriation. Last time we checked, Elon’s net worth exceeded this amount by a considerable degree. 

Currently, Forbes places his wealth at $491 billion. And, with the Exit Tax, the IRS acts as though all your assets are sold off on the day of expatriation, before taxing them as capital gains. 

That’s Tesla, X, SpaceX, the Boring Company – the whole lot – at market value, then taxed as a capital gain. The top rate of capital gains tax in the US is currently 20%, but they’ll also add in NIIT (Net Investment Income Tax), bringing that up to 23.8%

So the IRS would be getting close to a quarter of the world’s richest man’s wealth. That puts the figure at $116.85 billion, making it the largest such tax bill in history. (For context, Bill Gates’ current net worth is $104 billion.)

On the plus side, the IRS does provide relief in the form of an Exclusion Amount, which can be subtracted. 

Currently, that rate is $890,00. So if you subtract $890,00 from $116.85 billion, you’re left with… $116.85 billion, never mind. 

This would leave Elon with €374.14 billion, hardly chump change. Plus, he would remain the world’s richest man, with a comfortable lead of around $111 billion ahead of Google’s Larry Page. 

I wonder if that would provide much solace, though, after having his citizenship revoked and forced to pay more than a full Bill Gates-worth of taxes?

But This Story Has Another Twist

Zohran Mamdani and Elon Musk could not be more different in person, but their backstories are quite similar. 

Both were children of immigrants, and both were born in Africa but later obtained citizenship in the US. 

Zohran Mamdani was born in Uganda to Indian immigrants. Elon Musk was born in South Africa. Both his mother and grandfather were Canadian. 

In the 1970s, Uganda and South Africa both implemented policies revoking citizenship on ethnic grounds. 

In 1970, the year before Musk was born, the Apartheid regime in South Africa enforced the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, which stripped millions of black South Africans of their citizenship. 

Then, in 1972, Ugandan dictator Idi Amin famously expelled tens of thousands of Asian citizens, predominantly of Indian descent, from Uganda, seizing their properties and businesses. Among them was Mahmood Mamdani, Zohran Mamdani’s father. 

Both actions resulted in international condemnation and economic collapse. The economic effects in Uganda were more immediate, having erased an entire merchant class from its society, whereas South Africa’s decline was more of a slow rot, worsened by economic sanctions which included the US, Canada, Australia and Europe. 

Amin went into exile in 1979, while the Apartheid regime ended in 1990, a year before Zohran Mamdani’s birth. 

The lesson to be learned here is that, while revocation of citizenship is highly effective when used as a threat, in action, it risks international condemnation, sanctions and economic collapse. 

Key Takeaways: Revocation of Citizenship

• US citizenship rights are protected by the US Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) and the Supreme Court (Afroyim v. Rusk).

• Trump is currently challenging the Fourteenth Amendment and how it pertains to birthright citizenship. 

• The Fifth Amendment, meanwhile, blocks executive control over citizenship matters by guaranteeing due process.

• In the past, countries which have revoked citizenship rights en masse have faced external pressures and international condemnation, combined with internal economic collapse.

• The US government does not have the right to revoke citizenship, however, it can denaturalise citizens in very specific cases. 

• A denaturalised individual reverts to their previous status and, therefore, will most likely be eligible for deportation. 

• If that person is considered a covered expatriate – e.g. with a net worth in excess of $2 million – they will be eligible to pay the US Exit Tax. 

America, The Unpredictable

Regardless of where they stand on the political divide, there’s a pervasive sense of unease among Americans and a growing concern that the country has lost its way. 

The Americans we talk to are weary. They’re tired of the politics, tired of feeling ripped off, tired of paying high taxes and getting nothing in return.

Though they love their country, they love their families more and no longer feel like America is the right place to raise them. They want to move where it’s safer and more affordable, with less crime, lower taxes and considerably more freedom. 

America was once the shining beacon which attracted immigrants from all over the world. But now that traffic has changed direction.

An increasing number of foreign investors are foregoing the US in favour of business-friendly jurisdictions like Dubai, while an increasing number of Americans are also leaving the United States for good.

The effects of this are already being felt, especially in Europe, where countries like Portugal are currently dealing with a backlog of golden visa applications, many of them from Americans looking to move abroad. 

If, as we predict, the number of Americans moving abroad increases in 2026, it’s going to become harder to obtain citizenship abroad.

Even if you don’t plan on moving overseas, having a second citizenship gives you leverage. That way, no matter what happens in the US, you and your family are protected. 

But the longer you wait, the harder it gets, so don’t waste time. Contact Millionaire Migrant today to discuss your options. 

Revocation of Citizenship: FAQs

Can the US government revoke citizenship?

No. The US government can denaturalise citizens under specific circumstances (misrepresentation, fraud, association with a proscribed group) but it does not have the right to simply revoke citizenship. 

American citizenship is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, multiple immigration-related acts, plus the 1967 Supreme Court ruling of Afroyim v. Rusk, which specifically states that the US government does not have the power to strip an American of their citizenship. 

What is Executive Order 14160?

Executive Order 14160 is an executive order signed by President Donald J Trump on January 20th, 2025. 

It essentially challenges the current Fourteenth Amendment definition of birthright citizenship on two grounds: 

• If the child’s mother was not legally resident in the US at the time of the child’s birth, and the father was neither a US citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth.

• If the child’s mother was on a temporary visa (e.g. student visa, work visa, etc.) and the father was not a US citizen or lawful resident at the time of the child’s birth. 

Having been challenged at the state level, Trump is now taking the matter to the Supreme Court. Though Trump has a 2:1 ratio of conservative to liberal judges, including three he appointed himself, there is no guarantee it will side with him here.

It would essentially mean overturning 127 years of legal precedent, in place since the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case of 1898, which, in turn, would have a knock-on effect on other US immigration rulings. 

Would Executive Order 14160 work retroactively?

No, aside from the logistical challenges of enforcing such a law retroactively,Executive Order 14160 states that it is effective from 30 days after it was signed, which would be 19th February 2025. 

Currently, all children born on US soil before or after that date are considered US citizens. If Trump does manage to win his case and the Constitution is then subsequently amended, children born after February 2025 would be affected, but they would not automatically become denaturalised.

Rather, those children would still be afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment, and, given the number of children involved, such a spike in cases would invariably lead to a backlog, so it’s difficult to predict how such a scenario would even work in practical terms.