Comedian Rosie O’Donnell and former President Donald Trump engaged in a war of words after Trump threatened to revoke O’Donnell’s U.S. citizenship on social media. O’Donnell, who relocated to Ireland before Trump’s return to office, responded by criticizing Trump, calling him “King Joffrey with a tangerine spray tan.” Trump’s threat has no legal basis, yet it came after a Department of Justice memo outlined plans to “maximally pursue” denaturalization of U.S. citizens, with an eye towards those who allegedly procured citizenship through fraud. O’Donnell continues to voice her criticism, including making comments about Trump’s impact on the flash floods in Texas.
Read More
In a recent escalation, President Trump threatened to strip comedian Rosie O’Donnell of her U.S. citizenship due to her criticism, despite the president having no legal power to do so. O’Donnell, born in New York, responded by criticizing Trump on social media. This comes as Trump attempts to end birthright citizenship and is pursuing denaturalization of American citizens, actions currently facing legal challenges. This context highlights the increasing tensions between the former president and his critics.
Read More
President Trump has publicly threatened to revoke the citizenship of comedian Rosie O’Donnell, signaling a further attempt to weaponize citizenship against his political opponents. This move is part of a broader pattern, as the administration is prioritizing a large denaturalization push, with Trump reportedly viewing naturalized and native-born citizens similarly when considering who might lose their citizenship. Trump has also floated the idea of targeting other individuals, such as a New York assemblyman, demonstrating a disregard for the First Amendment and constitutional values. This is in addition to the fact that Trump has openly challenged the 14th Amendment, by attempting to end birthright citizenship.
Read More
In a Truth Social post, former President Donald Trump stated he is considering revoking Rosie O’Donnell’s U.S. citizenship, citing her as a “threat to humanity.” This sparked backlash, especially since legal experts have noted that the President does not have the authority to revoke the citizenship of someone born in the U.S. except in cases of fraud. The feud between Trump and O’Donnell dates back to 2006 when O’Donnell criticized Trump’s moral character, leading to ongoing public attacks. O’Donnell currently resides in Ireland.
Read More
A federal judge in New Hampshire has ruled to certify a class-action lawsuit and issue a preliminary injunction against President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. This ruling, which will protect all children affected by the order, follows a Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of nationwide injunctions and gave lower courts a deadline to act. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a pregnant woman and parents of infants, challenges the executive order’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The judge found the government’s arguments unpersuasive and determined that the deprivation of U.S. citizenship would cause irreparable harm.
Read More
Donald Trump and his allies are targeting the U.S. census, with a new proposal backed by Trump aiming to alter the electoral map significantly. This plan, championed by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, would mandate a new census that only counts U.S. citizens, effectively excluding non-citizens from the apportionment process. This proposal, mirroring a previous Republican bill, is framed as a response to false claims of election rigging and is seen by critics as an unconstitutional attack on the electoral system. Such actions align with historical efforts by white supremacists, violating the Constitution’s requirement to count all residents for apportionment and potentially leading to a constitutional crisis.
Read More
The Department of Justice has signaled its intent to broaden the scope of denaturalization efforts, as indicated in a recent memo outlining enforcement priorities. The memo prioritizes cases involving individuals posing a potential national security threat, including those with alleged ties to terrorism, raising concerns about the potential for politically motivated targeting. This expansion could involve scrutinizing naturalized citizens for omissions on their citizenship applications based on broad interpretations of national security. Although legal challenges and Supreme Court precedents may limit the administration’s ability to carry out mass denaturalizations, the policy of fear could discourage political activism.
Read More
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is making denaturalization a top priority, directing its attorneys to aggressively pursue cases against naturalized citizens who commit crimes. This initiative will focus on individuals who may have committed fraud or other violations, expanding the criteria for which crimes could result in a loss of citizenship. Immigration experts express serious concerns about the constitutionality of the effort, especially regarding its potential impact on naturalized citizens and their families. The government has indicated that it plans to pursue these cases through civil litigation, raising due process questions and fears of creating a second class of citizens.
Read More
A recent Justice Department memo outlines the Trump administration’s prioritization of denaturalization for naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes or procured citizenship through fraudulent means. The memo targets the estimated 25 million naturalized U.S. citizens, identifying ten priority categories for denaturalization, including those involved in war crimes, serious human rights abuses, and criminal activities. Legal experts express concerns over the civil proceedings that lack the same legal protections as criminal cases. This policy shift coincides with the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division’s involvement in ending DEI programs and other initiatives, while the division itself faces significant attrition of attorneys.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has paved the way for potential federal enforcement of an executive order restricting birthright citizenship. This ruling, though not addressing the order’s legality, limits federal courts’ power to issue nationwide injunctions, preventing policies from taking effect during litigation. In dissent, Justices Sotomayor and Jackson criticized the decision, accusing the court of undermining its role in checking government power and warning of broader threats to constitutional protections, including the potential for executive overreach and creation of a “zone of lawlessness.” The justices emphasized that the principle of birthright citizenship has stood unchallenged for over a century.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker