Trump Threatens to Strip Musk, Mamdani US Citizenship Rights

Trump’s administration has raised questions about revoking citizenship from foreign-born Americans, sparking concerns about the fate of Elon Musk and Zohran Mamdani. The controversy has become particularly relevant in recent weeks.

Mamdani, who’s running as a Democratic mayoral candidate for New York City, has lived in the United States since he was seven. Born in Uganda to ethnically Indian parents, he became a US citizen in 2018 at age 33. Musk’s story follows a similar path – born in South Africa in 1971, he moved to the US in 1992 and became a naturalized citizen in 2002.

A Justice Department memo dated June 11 has directed its civil division to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings” throughout the country. This directive could support Trump’s deportation agenda. The situation seems complex since citizenship requirements are clear – you need to live continuously in the US as a green card holder for five years, or three years if married to a US citizen.

Trump Targets Mamdani and Musk Over Citizenship

_{Image Source: Yahoo}

President Donald Trump has ramped up his rhetoric against naturalized American citizens. He directly targeted two prominent figures in recent weeks. This signals troubling changes in how the current administration might view citizenship rights.

Trump accuses Mamdani of supporting terrorism

Trump directly threatened New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani during a visit to a Florida migrant detention center. “Well, then we’ll have to arrest him,” Trump stated after someone asked about Mamdani’s pledge to block ICE agents from deporting New Yorkers. Trump also made false claims about Mamdani’s immigration status, saying “A lot of people are saying he’s here illegally. We’re going to look at everything”. These claims contradict Mamdani’s background – he was born in Uganda to Indian parents and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2018.

The situation grew more serious after Representative Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi. He claimed Mamdani hid his support for terrorism during his naturalization process. Ogles pointed to a rap song where Mamdani supposedly referred to members of a foundation convicted of supporting Hamas as “my guys”.

Trump threatens Musk over EV subsidies and political fallout

Trump’s citizenship threats reached tech billionaire Elon Musk after their relationship soured over a Republican tax bill. Trump said he would “take a look” at possibly deporting Musk, even though Musk has been a U.S. citizen since 2002.

Trump posted on Truth Social: “Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history… Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa”. Tesla’s stock dropped nearly 6% in early trading as a result. The dispute started after Musk called the Republican tax bill “utterly insane and destructive” and threatened to campaign against its supporters.

White House and GOP figures echo denaturalization rhetoric

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt backed these threats. She said claims against Mamdani “should be investigated if they are true”. A Justice Department memo dated June 11 told attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings” against naturalized citizens.

The memo targets several groups including “those with a nexus to terrorism” and people who allegedly lied during naturalization. Legal experts worry about the memo’s broad language that suggests “any offense, at any time, may be used to justify denaturalization”.

Mamdani responded to these threats with a statement. He called Trump’s comments “an attack on our democracy” and “an attempt to send a message to every New Yorker who refuses to hide in the shadows: If you speak up, they will come for you”.

What Are the Legal Grounds for Revoking Citizenship?

The process of denaturalization – revoking citizenship – follows strict legal procedures that limit how the government can strip naturalized Americans of their status. Federal courts must handle citizenship revocation cases, unlike administrative immigration proceedings. This provides crucial procedural protection.

Denaturalization laws and DOJ memo explained

The DOJ memo from June 11 tells attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law”. This directive marks a major change in enforcement priorities that lists ten categories of people who could lose their citizenship, including those with “a nexus to terrorism” and people who allegedly committed fraud.

The Justice Department filed just over 300 denaturalization cases between 1990 and 2017—about 11 cases yearly. Referrals jumped by 600% under the first Trump administration. This marked an unprecedented expansion of efforts to revoke citizenship.

Criteria: fraud, terrorism, treason, or foreign allegiance

Federal law sets several grounds to revoke citizenship:

• Illegal procurement: Someone who failed to meet residency, good moral character, or other requirements during their original citizenship application
• Concealment or misrepresentation: Someone who deliberately hid important facts during naturalization
• Membership in certain organizations: People who joined terrorist or totalitarian organizations within five years of naturalization
• Dishonorable military discharge: Those who got citizenship through military service but received dishonorable discharge before completing five years of honorable service

Past denaturalization efforts targeted Nazi war criminals and people who committed serious human rights violations. The Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in Maslenjak v. United States limited criminal denaturalization’s scope. The court decided that only illegal acts directly linked to acquiring citizenship could lead to its revocation.

Recent DOJ cases and civil court requirements

The government faces tough legal requirements to revoke citizenship. Prosecutors must show “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt” in civil proceedings. Criminal cases need even stronger “proof beyond reasonable doubt”.

The Justice Department succeeded in denaturalizing Elliott Duke. He distributed child sexual abuse material and lied about these crimes during his naturalization process. Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate stated: “If you commit serious crimes before you become a U.S. citizen and then lie about them during your naturalization process, the Justice Department will find the truth”.

Legal experts worry about potential overreach despite the DOJ memo giving broad discretion for denaturalization cases. This concern grows because naturalized citizens have no right to an attorney in civil immigration matters.

How Have Mamdani and Musk Responded to the Threats?

_{Image Source: KTLA}

President Trump’s citizenship threats prompted strong responses from both Mamdani and Musk, triggering reactions from political figures of all backgrounds.

Mamdani calls Trump’s remarks intimidation

Mamdani posted a statement on X right after Trump’s threats: “The President of the United States just threatened to have me arrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp and deported. Not because I have broken any law but because I will refuse to let ICE terrorize our city”. He viewed Trump’s comments as “an attempt to send a message to every New Yorker who refuses to hide in the shadows: if you speak up, they will come for you”.

During an NBC “Meet the Press” interview, Mamdani rejected Trump’s communist label outright. “I am not,” he stated. He added that Trump “wants to distract from what I’m fighting for. And I’m fighting for the very working people that he ran a campaign to enable that he has since then betrayed”.

Musk denies immigration fraud and criticizes Trump’s bill

Trump’s relationship with Elon Musk soured after Musk criticized the president’s tax legislation. Musk blasted the bill as “utterly insane and destructive” on X, claiming it “will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country”.

Trump’s suggestion that Musk might need to “close up shop and head back home to South Africa” sparked more criticism from the Tesla CEO. Musk threatened a new political party launch if the Senate passed the bill. He briefly mentioned decommissioning SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft but later retracted the statement.

Public and political reactions to Trump’s statements

Democratic leaders rushed to Mamdani’s defense. New York Governor Kathy Hochul declared: “I don’t care if you’re the President of the United States, if you threaten to unlawfully go after one of our neighbors, you’re picking a fight with 20 million New Yorkers — starting with me”.

House minority leader Representative Hakeem Jeffries told Trump to “Stop lying about Assemblyman Mamdani” and stressed, “He is neither a communist nor a lunatic”. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut labeled Trump’s denaturalization demands as “racist bullshit”.

Michael Kagan from University of Nevada and other legal experts described Trump’s rhetoric as “irresponsible” and “designed to intimidate political opponents”. The public clash between Trump and Musk caused Tesla’s stock to drop more than 6%.

What Does History Say About Denaturalization in the US?

_{Image Source: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education}

The pattern of politically motivated citizenship revocation in American history has changed by a lot over time. Today’s threats against Musk and Mamdani remind us of troubling historical events that courts eventually stopped.

Red Scare and Cold War era denaturalizations

Denaturalization became a political weapon against people the government saw as threats to American interests in the early 20th century. The McCarthy era saw about 22,000 denaturalization cases filed each year. The first Red Scare (1919-1920) started after World War I. The Bolshevik Revolution made people fear radical immigrants. Attorney General Palmer ordered raids on leftist organizations that led to thousands of arrests.

The second Red Scare made these efforts more intense after World War II. The Nationality Act of 1940 added many new reasons to revoke citizenship, such as voting in foreign elections or working for foreign governments. Each year from 1926 to the mid-1940s, hundreds of people lost their citizenship. The government targeted pacifists, conscientious objectors, and people they thought supported communism.

Notable cases: Emma Goldman, Paul Knauer

Emma Goldman’s story shows how the government used denaturalization against political dissidents. Goldman came to America in 1885 from Lithuania, which was part of the Russian Empire then. She opposed U.S. involvement in World War I. The government jailed her in 1917 and she ended up losing her citizenship. They deported her to Soviet Russia in 1919. Officials first looked into her husband’s citizenship, which her status depended on. They found he got citizenship before he was eligible.

Paul Knauer’s story began when he came to the US from Germany in 1925 and became a citizen in 1937. He lost his citizenship in 1946. Officials said he hid his connection to the German-American Bund, a group that spread Nazi propaganda.

Supreme Court rulings that limited denaturalization

The Supreme Court changed everything about denaturalization with its landmark Afroyim v. Rusk ruling in 1967. The justices decided that denaturalization went against “the American form of democracy” because it created “two levels of citizenship”. Their 5-4 decision said Congress could not take away citizenship without consent.

This ruling cut denaturalization cases from thousands to just a few each year. The government then focused on taking citizenship from war criminals, terrorists, and human rights abusers who lied to get citizenship. The 2017 Maslenjak v. United States decision later made it clear that small mistakes weren’t enough to take away citizenship unless they played a key role in the naturalization decision.

The threats against Mamdani and Musk show a worrying shift in American immigration policy. Denaturalization has been used as a political weapon throughout history, especially when nationalism runs high or threats loom. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Afroyim v. Rusk and Maslenjak v. United States have substantially limited the government’s power to take away citizenship without cause.

The Trump administration’s June 11 memo shows a massive expansion of denaturalization efforts that raises red flags. These direct threats against well-known naturalized citizens create fear that goes beyond the actual targets. Many naturalized Americans now worry about their citizenship status.

People’s reactions to these threats reveal deep splits in American society. Democratic leaders and legal experts say Trump uses intimidation to silence his opponents. Some Republican figures push claims that could justify taking away citizenship.

The bar for denaturalization stays high. Courts need “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” in civil cases or “proof beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal cases. Political talk alone can’t strip away citizenship without meeting these tough legal requirements.

This debate brings up basic questions about America’s identity and values. The gap between native-born and naturalized citizens goes against the idea that all citizens deserve equal legal protection. Americans must now decide if citizenship should last forever or stay open to political pressure.

The legal system protects people from random denaturalization, but we need to stay alert. History shows that denaturalization efforts grow during tense political times until courts step in. This pattern suggests current threats will face similar legal limits, but not before hurting targeted communities.