DEPORT Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Riley M. [R-WV-2]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 16, 2026
Bottom line
The bill significantly tightens naturalization requirements and expands the government's ability to revoke citizenship and deport individuals involved in terrorism-related activities, including those naturalized before the bill's enactment, raising substantial due process and constitutional questions.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to require naturalization applicants to attest under oath that they have not committed and do not intend to commit any terrorism-related 'covered offense.' It also expands grounds for denaturalization, making terrorism convictions or conduct (even if occurring after naturalization or retroactively for prior naturalizations) prima facie evidence of illegal procurement of citizenship. Denaturalized individuals would be deportable, inadmissible, and ineligible for any immigration benefit, with no waivers available.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a critical national security measure designed to prevent individuals with terrorist intent or affiliations from obtaining or retaining U.S. citizenship. They contend it strengthens the integrity of the naturalization process and ensures that those who engage in or support terrorism are removed from the country, thereby protecting the American people.
Opponents contend
Critics contend that the bill raises significant constitutional concerns regarding due process, ex post facto laws, and the stability of citizenship. They argue that its broad retroactive application, the use of rebuttable presumptions, and provisions for classified evidence in civil denaturalization proceedings could lead to arbitrary revocations, create a class of stateless individuals, and erode fundamental legal protections.
The bill is concise but contains complex legal amendments and cross-references, requiring careful reading to fully understand its implications for naturalization, denaturalization, and immigration enforcement.
Section 2, amending INA Section 316
Terrorism Attestation Requirement for Naturalization
This provision requires all applicants for naturalization to execute a written attestation under oath, affirming that they have not been convicted of, or had charges pending for, any 'covered offense' (terrorism-related crimes) at the time of application or oath of allegiance, and that they do not intend to commit any such offense in the future. The application form (Form N-400) must be revised to include this attestation, listing each covered offense individually.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this attestation is a vital safeguard to ensure that only individuals loyal to the United States and committed to its security are granted citizenship, preventing those with terrorist ties or intentions from becoming naturalized citizens.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that existing 'good moral character' requirements already address these concerns and that an attestation regarding future intent is subjective and difficult to verify, potentially leading to arbitrary denials or future denaturalization based on perceived intent.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances national security interests by adding a specific anti-terrorism pledge to the naturalization process against concerns about the enforceability and potential for subjective interpretation of an attestation regarding future intent.
Section 3, amending INA Section 340
Expanded Grounds and Presumptions for Denaturalization
This section significantly expands the grounds for denaturalization. For individuals naturalized before this bill's enactment, a terrorism-related conviction or credible evidence of such conduct within 10 years of naturalization creates prima facie evidence that citizenship was illegally procured. For those naturalized after the attestation requirement takes effect, a subsequent conviction for a 'covered offense' creates a rebuttable presumption that their attestation was false (either regarding past conduct or future intent). It also outlines procedures for civil denaturalization proceedings, including the potential use of classified information.
Section 4, amending INA Section 237(a)
Deportability of Denaturalized Persons
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to explicitly state that any alien whose naturalization has been revoked pursuant to Section 340 (as amended by this bill) shall be deportable and subject to removal proceedings. This ensures a clear pathway for the government to remove individuals whose citizenship has been revoked under the new provisions.
Section 6
Revocation of All Immigration Benefits and Mandatory Detention
This section mandates that any alien convicted of a 'covered offense' (terrorism-related crime) is rendered ineligible for virtually all immigration benefits, including adjustment of status, relief from removal, nonimmigrant status, temporary protected status, deferred action, parole, and naturalization. It also subjects such aliens to removal proceedings and mandatory detention during those proceedings. Any existing immigration benefits, including lawful permanent resident status, are revoked upon a final order of removal or denaturalization, and no waivers are available for any ground of inadmissibility or deportability arising under this section.
Section 7, amending INA Section 212(a)(2)
Permanent Bar to Admission for Terrorist Offenders
This section establishes a permanent bar to admission for any person whose naturalization is revoked under Section 340 or who has been previously ordered removed for a conviction of a 'covered offense.' This means such individuals can never legally enter the United States again. Crucially, no waiver of inadmissibility under any provision of law is available for these individuals.
For persons naturalized prior to the effective date of the attestation requirement, a conviction or credible evidence of covered conduct within 10 years after naturalization constitutes prima facie evidence for denaturalization. This 10-year period is explicitly stated to apply 'unless judicially determined to be unconstitutional as applied, in which case a 7-year period shall apply, and if that period is likewise determined unconstitutional, a 5-year period shall apply.'
Section 3(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451), as amended by Section 3 of the bill
Why it matters:This language anticipates and attempts to preemptively address potential constitutional challenges (e.g., ex post facto concerns) regarding the retroactive application of the denaturalization grounds. It's a legislative attempt to 'future-proof' the provision against judicial review by offering fallback timeframes.
Case for: Supporters would argue this demonstrates legislative foresight and a commitment to ensuring the denaturalization provisions remain enforceable even if initial timeframes are challenged, aiming to maximize the retroactive reach within constitutional bounds.
Case against: Critics would contend this highlights the bill's potential constitutional vulnerabilities and could be seen as an attempt to circumvent judicial review by pre-determining alternative outcomes rather than allowing courts to fully interpret the law, adding complexity and uncertainty.
Estimated impact: This provision could affect the number of individuals eligible for denaturalization based on conduct occurring after naturalization but before the bill's enactment, depending on how courts rule on the constitutionality of the specified timeframes.
This provision allows the Attorney General to initiate civil denaturalization proceedings based on clear and convincing evidence of terrorist activity (even without a criminal conviction) where classified information is involved. The court would review this classified information in camera and ex parte (without the defendant present), with the Attorney General certifying that disclosure would harm national security and that the classified information, combined with unclassified evidence, meets the evidentiary standard. The defendant is still afforded a meaningful opportunity to contest unclassified portions.
Section 3(i)(4)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451), as amended by Section 3 of the bill
Why it matters:This is a critical national security provision that balances government secrecy with due process concerns. Its placement reflects its technical nature and the legislative effort to address a complex legal challenge within the broader framework of denaturalization.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is essential for national security cases where disclosing intelligence would compromise sources and methods, allowing the government to act on critical information to protect the public when criminal prosecution is not feasible.
Case against: Critics would contend this raises significant due process concerns, as defendants cannot fully confront evidence reviewed ex parte, potentially leading to unfair proceedings and revocations based on secret evidence, eroding fundamental rights.
Estimated impact: This provision could enable denaturalization in cases where criminal prosecution is not feasible due to the sensitive nature of classified evidence, potentially affecting a small but highly sensitive number of individuals suspected of terrorist activity.