Donald Trump's Alleged Plan to Denaturalise Ilhan Omar Is 'Blatantly Unconstitutional', Author Claims

President Donald Trump's administration has reportedly considered denaturalising Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, prompting warnings from a leading legal scholar that such a move would violate constitutional protections.

Amherst College professor Austin Sarat raised those concerns after reports that federal agents searched Omar's home on 12 October 2026 as part of an inquiry into alleged immigration fraud linked to her path to US citizenship.

For context, Sarat's account describes a predawn search of Omar's residence by Homeland Security agents under a warrant involving alleged immigration fraud. The reported investigation concerns statements connected to her acquisition of American citizenship.

Ilhan Omar Citizenship Raid Sparks Constitutional Debate

According to Sarat's account, investigators are examining allegations that Omar's family misrepresented her age during the citizenship process.

The reported inquiry concerns whether her birth date was misstated to qualify for citizenship through her father's naturalisation. That route was available to children under 18, according to the report.

These allegations remain unproven. The existence of an investigation does not establish immigration fraud or demonstrate that Omar obtained citizenship unlawfully.

Sarat, the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, described the alleged targeting as 'blatantly unconstitutional and cruel'.

His criticism draws on former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren's reasoning in the 1958 case Trop v Dulles.

'Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior,' Warren wrote.

The ruling addressed citizenship deprivation imposed as criminal punishment. However, it does not automatically establish that every civil denaturalisation proceeding violates the Constitution.

That distinction matters because Omar's reported investigation concerns how she acquired citizenship, rather than citizenship deprivation imposed as criminal punishment.

Trump's Denaturalisation Drive and Justice Department Targets

The reported investigation follows broader efforts by the Trump administration to increase denaturalisation proceedings.

Citing USA Today, Sarat reported that federal authorities historically averaged approximately 11 denaturalisation cases annually. Since Trump's return to office, the Department of Justice has reportedly filed at least 163 cases.

The administration also reportedly established a target of 250 cases for October 2026. That figure represents a reported goal, not a confirmed number of completed proceedings.

Trump advanced his administration's denaturalisation policy through an executive order issued at the beginning of his second presidential term.

The directive instructed federal officials to devote resources towards identifying potential violations covered by federal denaturalisation law.

Six months later, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate directed lawyers within the Justice Department's Civil Division to prioritise denaturalisation proceedings.

The relevant legislation, 8 U.S.C. § 1451, permits citizenship revocation under specified circumstances, including material concealment or wilful misrepresentation during naturalisation.

Civil denaturalisation differs from citizenship deprivation imposed as criminal punishment. Nevertheless, authorities must establish the applicable statutory grounds before citizenship can be revoked.

Sarat also cited December 2025 reporting by The New York Times describing instructions requesting between 100 and 200 potential denaturalisation cases monthly during the 2026 fiscal year.

These figures concern reported filings and administrative targets. They do not establish wrongdoing by Omar or any other individual.

Historic Supreme Court Warnings Enter Omar Citizenship Row

Sarat's argument also draws on historical examples of citizenship revocation involving accusations of political disloyalty.

Historian Patrick Weil has examined denaturalisation campaigns affecting German immigrants, anarchists and wartime opponents during the twentieth century.

During the Second World War, authorities also stripped citizenship from individuals associated with the pro-Nazi German American Bund.

In 1943, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to revoke citizenship from an admitted Communist Party member.

Justice Frank Murphy emphasised the importance of protecting citizens' freedom to express political and religious convictions without fearing punishment or exile.

Sarat argues that these historical warnings remain relevant to the Trump administration's approach.

However, the immediate legal question concerning Omar is whether investigators can substantiate an alleged material misrepresentation connected to her citizenship.

Political disagreement with the president would not independently satisfy that statutory requirement.

Sarat warns that politically selective citizenship enforcement could have implications for approximately 26 million naturalised Americans, a population figure cited in his commentary.

Whether the reported allegations against Omar can be substantiated remains unresolved. The available source also does not establish whether federal prosecutors will pursue formal denaturalisation proceedings against the congresswoman.