Can Mamdani Be Denaturalized? Trump Administration Escalates Campaign Against NYC Mayoral Candidate

The Trump administration has launched an unprecedented campaign against Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, combining political attacks with threats of federal action that legal experts say lack constitutional foundation. The escalating rhetoric marks a significant expansion of federal interference in local elections and raises serious questions about the weaponization of immigration enforcement.

President Trump’s assault on Mamdani began immediately after his primary victory, starting with name-calling and escalating to threats of arrest and citizenship revocation. According to media reports, the campaign has involved multiple federal agencies and officials.

Trump has repeatedly called Mamdani a “Communist Lunatic” on Truth Social, threatened to withhold federal funding from New York City, and suggested he would arrest the mayoral candidate if he interferes with Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Trump declared, “Rest assured, I hold all the levers, and have all the cards,” signaling potential federal retaliation against the city.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told Trump’s Homeland Security Advisory Council that she was considering using “authorities that have never been utilized before” to investigate whether Mamdani poses a “danger” to New York City, according to The New York Post.

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) has formally requested Attorney General Pam Bondi investigate Mamdani’s naturalization process, alleging potential fraud in a letter that characterizes the candidate as “antisemitic, socialist, communist,” according to The Hill.

The Legal Reality of Denaturalization

Despite the administration’s threats, legal experts say the chances of successfully denaturalizing Mamdani are extremely low due to stringent constitutional and statutory requirements.

Under federal law, denaturalization requires proof that citizenship was obtained through willful misrepresentation or concealment of material facts during the naturalization process. According to the National Immigration Forum, “denaturalization can only occur by a judicial order either through civil proceedings or a criminal conviction for naturalization fraud.”

While civil denaturalization cases have no statute of limitations, most successful cases involve clear evidence of fraud or criminal activity during the naturalization process. Mamdani became a naturalized citizen in 2018, and his political activities as a Democratic Socialist of America member have been public throughout his political career.

The Supreme Court established in 1967 that denaturalization is “inconsistent with the American form of democracy, because it creates two levels of citizenship,” as NPR reported. This landmark ruling significantly narrowed the government’s ability to revoke citizenship.

The administration’s campaign against Mamdani ultimately appears designed more to energize political supporters and intimidate immigrant communities than to achieve actual legal outcomes.

The Justice Department’s recent memo prioritizing denaturalization cases focuses on individuals “convicted of certain crimes” or those who “illegally procured naturalization,” according to ABC News. Mamdani has no criminal record, and there’s no evidence of fraud in his naturalization process.

Political vs. Legal Motivations

The administration’s campaign appears to be primarily political rather than based on legitimate legal grounds. Mamdani’s positions—supporting sanctuary city policies, opposing ICE raids, and advocating for higher taxes on wealthy New Yorkers—align with standard Democratic Socialist platforms but do not constitute grounds for citizenship revocation.

Mamdani’s political speech, including controversial statements about Israel and support for Palestinian causes, remains protected under the First Amendment. Political dissent, even when unpopular, cannot serve as grounds for denaturalization.

Despite Trump’s false claims, Mamdani is legally in the United States. As TIME reported, “Mamdani is not in the U.S. illegally; he was born in Uganda and moved to the U.S. at the age of 7, becoming a naturalized American citizen in 2018.”

Legal scholars and Democratic lawmakers have expressed alarm at the administration’s tactics. Rep. Pramila Jayapal called denaturalization efforts “completely outrageous and flies in the face of the laws of this country,” according to Semafor’s reporting.

The case represents what critics see as an attempt to weaponize federal immigration powers against political opponents. New York Governor Kathy Hochul defended Mamdani, stating: “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.”

Financial Leverage and Federal Funding

Trump’s threats to withhold federal funding from New York City represent a more immediate concern than denaturalization. According to Forbes, New York City’s 2026 operating budget includes $7.4 billion in federal funding, representing 6.4% of total city spending.

This funding supports essential services including public housing, hospitals, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority. While courts have previously limited presidential power to withhold federal funds, the Trump administration’s aggressive approach suggests potential legal battles ahead.

While the Trump administration’s threats against Mamdani generate significant political theater, the legal prospects for denaturalization remain virtually nonexistent. The high constitutional bar for citizenship revocation, combined with the lack of evidence supporting fraud or criminal activity, makes successful denaturalization highly unlikely.

However, the broader implications—using federal powers to intimidate political opponents and interfere in local elections—represent a more serious threat to democratic norms. The case serves as a test of institutional constraints on presidential power and the resilience of constitutional protections for naturalized citizens.

The administration’s campaign against Mamdani ultimately appears designed more to energize political supporters and intimidate immigrant communities than to achieve actual legal outcomes. Nevertheless, the chilling effect on democratic participation and the normalization of such tactics pose lasting concerns for American democracy.