Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s Plan to Strip Rep. Omar of Her Citizenship Is Unconstitutional and a Threat to All of Us

Opinion

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) at the U.S. Capitol on February 12, 2026, in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Writing in 1958, Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, compared stripping someone of their citizenship to torture. He argued that “Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior. And the deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the Government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be.”

You would never know that from the way the Trump Administration has been trying to use that weapon. They are apparently determined to use it against Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a naturalized citizen and vocal critic of the president.


She has been on his enemies' list for a long time.

This effort came to light after Homeland Security agents carried out a predawn search of her home on October 12. They obtained a warrant alleging immigration fraud and false statements in conjunction with her naturalization process.

Targeting Omar is precisely the sort of thing Warren had in mind when he warned against the perils of government efforts to use deprivation of citizenship to punish people who offend or displease powerful public officials. All of us have a stake in this case.

It is blatantly unconstitutional and cruel, and it is another shameful episode in the saga of the Trump presidency.

USA Today notes that Omar is not alone in being targeted for denaturalization. “The Trump administration has spent the past year reviving denaturalization, a legal tool once reserved mostly for war criminals and terrorism suspects.”

“For decades,” it adds, “the government averaged about 11 such cases a year…. Since Trump returned to office, the Justice Department has filed at least 163 cases and set a goal of 250 this month.”

He ramped up denaturalization efforts on the first day of his second term when he signed an Executive Order that directed the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Director of National Intelligence, to "ensure the devotion of adequate resources to identify and take appropriate action for offenses described in 8 U.S.C. § 1451."

Six months later, Brett Shumate, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, ordered lawyers in that division to ramp up denaturalization proceedings. Civil denaturalization is an easier route than doing it as a criminal punishment. It avoids the restriction imposed by the Supreme Court in 1958, since in that case the loss of citizenship was imposed as a punishment for the commission of a crime.

And according to the New York Times, in December 2025, the Trump Administration directed “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field offices…(to) ‘supply Office of Immigration Litigation with 100-200 denaturalization cases per month’ in the 2026 fiscal year.”

Congress has laid out a series of circumstances under which denaturalization can occur in a provision of the law known as “8 U.S.C. § 1451.” One of those circumstances is if the “certificate of naturalization…(is) illegally procured or (was) procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation…”

This seems to be the basis on which the Trump Administration hopes to strip Rep. Omar of her citizenship. They allege that she lied about her age to obtain citizenship through her father’s naturalization, “a route open only to children under 18. Investigators are trying to determine whether the family misstated her birth date so she would qualify….”

The denaturalization law, 8 U.S.C. § 1451, states that someone can lose their citizenship if their “certificate of naturalization (was) illegally procured or…procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.”

Echoing the concerns of another era, it also states that someone can be denaturalized if they “become a member of or affiliated with any organization, membership in or affiliation with which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization… (and indicates) that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization….”

Professor Patrick Weil recalls that during World War I, the administration of President Woodrow Wilson denaturalized German citizens as well as anarchists and people who opposed the war. And, during World War II, the Roosevelt Administration stripped the citizenship of people who were members of the pro-Nazi German American Bund.

However, in 1943, the Supreme Court clamped down on denaturalization efforts when it rejected the government’s effort to denaturalize “an admitted member of the Communist Party of the United States.” As Justice Frank Murphy explained, “We are… a heterogeneous people…who sought refuge in the new world from the cruelty and oppression of the old, where men have been burned at the stake, imprisoned, and driven into exile in countless numbers for their political and religious beliefs.”

“Here,” Murphy said, “they have hoped to achieve a political status as citizens in a free world in which men are privileged to think and act and speak according to their convictions, without fear of punishment or further exile so long as they keep the peace and obey the law.”

All Americans should heed Murphy’s words even if the Trump Administration does not.

Murphy warned that allowing the government “to turn the clock back” after citizenship is granted “is more serious than a taking of one's property, or the imposition of a fine or other penalty. For it is safe to assert that nowhere in the world today is the right of citizenship of greater worth to an individual than it is in this country.”

For people around the world, Murphy observed, American citizenship “is regarded as the highest hope of civilized men.”

Today, because of what the Trump Administration has done and is doing, that may no longer be as true as it once was. That is one sign of the terrible price this country is paying for having elected Trump president.

One way of describing that price is to recall what Chief Justice Warren said about the loss of citizenship. It “destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development,” and amounts to taking away “the right to have rights.”

If the Trump Administration can do that to Ilhan Omar, it will send a chilling message to the 26 million naturalized citizens in this country that they, too, can lose that right if and when they behave in ways that offend the president and his cronies. None of us, no matter our citizenship status, should want to live under such a regime, a regime that, in the words of the political theorist Hannah Arendt, is displaying the signs of what she called “totalitarian infection.”

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.


Read More

The White House
The white house with green lawn and trees
Photo by Josh on Unsplash

The Politics of Gratitude: Why Washington Punishes the Loyalty It Cannot Price

On a Sunday night in August, Senator Jon Ossoff told a campaign rally in Atlanta that President Trump would rather build his ballroom and “travel with Natalie” than do his job. He never used her last name. He did not need to. Natalie Harp, the White House aide known to colleagues as Trump’s “human printer” for trailing him with a portable printer and transcribing his social-media dictation, had become a punchline before most Americans knew who she was.

The backlash arrived within hours. White House officials accused Ossoff of insinuating an affair; Republican Rep. Brandon Gill noted that Harp survived bone cancer only because the Right to Try Act, which Trump signed in 2018, let her seek an experimental treatment outside the normal approval process, and dismissed any other reading of the moment as unfair. Weeks earlier, Harp had been at the center of a far more consequential story: in July, she was one of a handful of aides, alongside the defense secretary and two senior staffers, chosen to accompany Trump on a covert switch of aircraft as he left a security summit in Turkey after officials detected a credible Iranian threat, while most of the traveling delegation stayed behind on a decoy plane. That is the real proximity Ossoff's line was needling. Then came a detail that complicated the story further: Trump had personally given Harp and several other aides cash gifts of $45,000 apiece, which a former federal ethics official called troublesome, since money on that scale can leave a recipient feeling indebted to whoever signs the check.

Keep ReadingShow less
A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed behind U.S. President Donald Trump.

A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed as U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Cartography of Convenience: Why Rushed Renaming Erodes Public Trust

In tough economic times, governments often reach for the easiest kind of progress: a new name on an old sign. Wage stagnation, inflation, crumbling roads, and rising rents are hard problems that take years and real money to fix. Renaming a street, a lake, or a strait is not. It costs a fraction as much and lets officials point to something they “did.” A new name never fixes a pothole or lowers a grocery bill. This year offered an unusually rich catalogue of the habit, reaching from a city council in Texas to a wartime waterway in the Persian Gulf.

A Concept Borrowed From the Cremation Ground

Indian philosophy has an old idea called shmashana vairagya, describing the sudden clarity a person feels standing at a cremation ground, when ordinary ambitions look small. The feeling fades once the mourner goes home. Public policy has its own version of this cycle. In the raw hours after a tragedy, a scandal, or a surge of national feeling, officials decide, sometimes within a single social media post, what belongs on a map or a sign forever. The emotion passes in hours. The bill, when there is one, stays for years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump on February 6, 2026.

(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

A Demagogue in the White House: Will the Guardrails Hold?

A demagogue does not seize all power at once. He takes it piece by piece.

In Trump’s second administration, those pieces accumulated in plain sight. The president generated so much disruption and noise that Americans struggled to keep pace. Each new controversy displaced the last, obscuring a more consequential story: the steady accumulation of presidential power.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner at the White House.

Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner in the East Room of the White House on September 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

When Leaders Disagree, Ceremony Plays an Important Role

When Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived at the White House on 24 September, the U.S. welcomed him with an elaborate display of ceremony. The Army Herald Trumpets sounded a fanfare, the Chinese and American national anthems were played, and the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps performed. A military review was followed by a flyover involving a B-2 bomber and four F-22 fighter jets, according to the White House. It was an extraordinary production for two countries that still disagree on some of the most important issues in international politics.

Talks between President Donald Trump and Xi touched on trade, artificial intelligence and Taiwan. The visit was marked by warm words and some signs of cooperation, but it did not erase the fundamental competition between the United States and China. So why was all this ceremony staged? It is tempting to dismiss political pomp as mere window dressing: an expensive historical relic surrounding the serious business taking place behind closed doors. As a music historian, however, I think this misunderstands what ceremony does. Ceremony can become particularly valuable when words alone are not enough.

Keep ReadingShow less