Former President Donald Trump recently reignited a heated debate by suggesting he might revoke U.S. citizenship from high-profile critics and political targets — including Elon Musk, New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, and comedian Rosie O’Donnell. But what’s actually legal? Can a president strip citizenship on a whim, or is this rhetoric an unconstitutional power grab?
Trump’s Claims and Targets
Trump’s threats erupted in a series of July Truth Social posts and public remarks:
-
He floated the idea that Elon Musk could be deported, claiming Musk “could lose a lot more than that” amid their public disputes over electric-vehicle subsidies and policy criticism Axios+8New York Magazine+8Dallas News+8New York Magazine+1Dallas News+1.
-
He directly targeted Mamdani, vowing to “look at everything” and even arrest the Democratic candidate for allegedly being a “communist” or illegally in the country New York Magazine+1Dallas News+1.
-
And in a Truth Social message, Trump claimed Rosie O’Donnell is “a threat to humanity” and that he’s “giving serious consideration” to revoking her citizenship The Week+8Them+8The Atlantic+8.
These remarks, aimed at stirring controversy, have alarmed legal experts and critics alike.
Native-Born vs Naturalized: What the Law Says
Rosie O’Donnell, born in the U.S., enjoys constitutional protection under the 14th Amendment. Supreme Court rulings (notably Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967 and other precedents) clear that native-born citizens cannot be stripped of citizenship except through voluntary renunciation Politico+1Vox+1.
Elon Musk (became citizen in 2002) and Zohran Mamdani (in 2018) are naturalized citizens. The Trump administration may pursue denaturalization proceedings—but only under strict circumstances, such as proof of fraud or serious misrepresentation at the time of obtaining citizenship . Denaturalization cannot be politically motivated and requires both strong evidence and court approval.
Denaturalization: Legal Routes and High Hurdles
The U.S. offers two main legal paths to denaturalization:
-
Criminal revocation upon conviction for immigration fraud or deliberately lying during naturalization.
-
Civil court action asserting “illegal procurement” of citizenship—again tied to fraud or misrepresentation at the time of application The Atlantic+8Dallas News+8TIME+8New York MagazineNew York Magazine+1New York Magazine+1.
Crucially, current Trump administration memos encourage broad use of denaturalization, citing national security, criminality, and other vague definitions — a move experts say risks chilling political dissent New York Magazine+2New York Magazine+2The Atlantic+2. But any actual case against Musk or Mamdani would require robust proof and is likely to fail, especially without credible evidence of fraud New York Magazine+3New York Magazine+3TIME+3.
High-Profile Cases: Musk and Mamdani
-
Elon Musk: Trump has suggested he might deport Musk, though Musk faced no formal allegations. Hypothetical grounds include potential visa violations during his early 1990s arrival—but any attempt to strip him of citizenship would require concrete legal findings New York Magazine+1New York Magazine+1.
-
Zohran Mamdani: Trump and some Republicans accuse him of being illegally in the U.S. or a communist sympathizer. However, denaturalization demands proven fraud in the naturalization process—not political views. Experts say Mamdani’s citizenship is safe, and the allegations lack any legal foundation Vox+6New York Magazine+6New York Magazine+6.
Political vs Constitutional Power
Constitutional experts unanimously agree: Trump has no unilateral authority to revoke citizenship. Native-born citizens are fully protected, while naturalized individuals face extremely limited legal risk TIME+3Axios+3New York Magazine+3.
The danger lies in the chilling effect of threatening rhetoric. Analysts warn that such public threats aim to intimidate critics and may pressure marginalized communities, undermining trust in democratic institutions New York Magazine.
Why It Matters
This controversy tests the strength of the American commitment to citizenship rights:
-
It reveals troubling attempts to weaponize immigration law for political ends.
-
It spotlights the fragile protections for naturalized citizens when the executive branch gains unchecked authority.
-
It raises questions about how the rule of law can withstand populist pressures.
Conclusion
While Trump may loudly proclaim a desire to strip Musk, Mamdani, or O’Donnell of citizenship, U.S. law and Supreme Court precedent make such actions highly unlikely and unconstitutional. Native-born citizens like O’Donnell are absolutely protected, and naturalized citizens like Musk and Mamdani would only be at risk if they lied during their initial citizenship process—a burden that’s not met by simple political dissent.
Ultimately, these threats are political signaling, not legal realities. But their implications matter: this rhetoric reveals a dangerous willingness to blur legal norms to target dissent.
