SCAM Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
- Last action
- Jan 26, 2026
Bottom line
This bill significantly broadens the scope and retroactivity of denaturalization for naturalized citizens who commit specific offenses or affiliations after acquiring citizenship, making their status conditional on future conduct.
What it actually does
This bill expands the grounds for civil denaturalization by establishing that certain post-naturalization actions—specifically, associating with terrorist organizations, committing government fraud of $10,000 or more, or committing aggravated felonies or espionage offenses within 10 years of naturalization—serve as prima facie evidence that the individual lacked good moral character and attachment to the Constitution at the time of naturalization. It mandates retroactive revocation of citizenship and subjects denaturalized individuals to expedited removal proceedings.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill upholds the integrity of U.S. citizenship by ensuring that individuals who betray their "sacred duties and obligations" through fraud, terrorism, or serious crimes can have their citizenship revoked, retroactively affirming they never met the initial character requirements. They contend it protects national security and governmental programs from abuse, reinforcing that citizenship is a privilege with responsibilities.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill creates a two-tiered citizenship system, where naturalized citizens face a higher standard and greater risk of losing their status than birthright citizens. They may raise concerns about due process, the retroactive application of "good moral character" based on future actions, and the potential for politically motivated denaturalization, particularly given the 10-year look-back period and the broad definitions of triggering conduct.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clearly stated, making it accessible for a thorough review within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Titles
This section establishes the official short titles for the Act: the "Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation Act" and the "SCAM Act." These titles are crucial for easy reference to the legislation, providing clear and concise identifiers for public and legislative discourse. They serve to quickly communicate the bill's intended focus and purpose to a broad audience, from policymakers to the general public.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that clear and concise short titles make the bill easily identifiable and communicate its core intent to the public and legislative bodies, aiding in public understanding and legislative tracking.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, though the choice of "SCAM Act" could be seen by critics as overly aggressive or a pejorative framing of the bill's subject matter.
Tradeoffs
The choice of a short title can influence public perception and political messaging, balancing clarity with potential rhetorical impact and the framing of the legislative debate.
Section 2
Congressional Findings and Sense of Congress
This section outlines Congress's findings regarding the "sacred duties and obligations" of U.S. citizenship and asserts that certain post-naturalization actions (fraud, affiliation with terrorist organizations, aggravated felonies) demonstrate a lack of good moral character at the time of naturalization. It cites Supreme Court cases on denaturalization and expresses a Sense of Congress that Costello v. INS misconstrued denaturalization effects, setting the legislative intent for the bill's expansive approach.
Section 4(1), amending Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Attorney General's Duty to Institute Proceedings
This amendment clarifies that it is the duty of "the Attorney General or" the United States Attorneys to institute denaturalization proceedings. This explicitly grants the Attorney General the authority to initiate these actions, alongside the existing authority of U.S. Attorneys, thereby potentially streamlining and centralizing the enforcement of denaturalization laws across the nation.
Section 4(3), inserting new subsection (d) into 8 U.S.C. 1451.
Denaturalization for Foreign Terrorist Organization Affiliation
This provision establishes that if a naturalized citizen associates with, conspires with, aids, or abets a designated foreign terrorist organization within 10 years of naturalization, it is considered prima facie evidence that they lacked good moral character and attachment to the Constitution at the time of naturalization. This conduct leads to the retroactive revocation of citizenship, treating the naturalization as void from its original date of issuance, and subjects the individual to expedited removal.
Section 4(3), inserting new subsection (e) into 8 U.S.C. 1451.
Denaturalization for Government Program Fraud
This provision makes naturalized citizens who are convicted of, or admit to, fraud against federal, state, local, or tribal governments (involving at least $10,000) subject to retroactive denaturalization if the acts occurred within 10 years of naturalization. This also serves as prima facie evidence of lacking good moral character, attachment to the Constitution, and disposition to good order at the time of naturalization, aiming to deter significant governmental fraud and ensure accountability.
Section 4(3), inserting new subsection (f) into 8 U.S.C. 1451.
Denaturalization for Aggravated Felonies or Espionage
This provision mandates retroactive denaturalization for naturalized citizens convicted of, or admitting to, an aggravated felony or a wide range of specified espionage offenses, if the acts occurred within 10 years of naturalization. Such conviction or admission is considered prima facie evidence that the individual lacked good moral character, attachment to the Constitution, and disposition to good order at the time of their naturalization, targeting serious criminal and national security threats.
Section 4(3), inserting new subsection (g) into 8 U.S.C. 1451.
Constitutional Fallback for 10-Year Period
This provision states that if the 10-year look-back period specified in the new subsections (d), (e), or (f) is deemed unconstitutional or constitutionally insufficient by a final judicial decision, it shall automatically revert to a 5-year period. This fallback mechanism ensures that the core intent of the denaturalization provisions remains enforceable, aligning with the precedent set in Luria v. United States (1913) and providing legal resilience against challenges.
Section 4(3), inserting new subsection (h) into 8 U.S.C. 1451.
Retroactive Effect and Removability
This provision clarifies that denaturalization is effective as of the original date of naturalization, making the certificate void from issuance, thereby establishing a full retroactive effect. It also mandates that any denaturalized person shall be removable via expedited proceedings under section 238, regardless of their post-denaturalization immigration status or the time elapsed since naturalization, streamlining the removal process for those whose citizenship is revoked.
Section 5
Severability Clause
This section ensures that if any provision of the Act, an amendment made by the Act, or its application to any particular person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions and their applications will not be affected. This standard legislative clause provides legal resilience for the bill, allowing the rest of the law to stand even if specific components face successful legal challenges.
If the 10-year look-back period for denaturalization grounds (terrorist affiliation, fraud, aggravated felony/espionage) is found unconstitutional or insufficient by a final judicial decision, it automatically reverts to a 5-year period, consistent with Luria v. United States.
Section 4(3), inserting new subsection (g) into 8 U.S.C. 1451.
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to provide a safeguard against potential constitutional challenges, ensuring the bill's core intent can still be realized even if a specific timeframe is invalidated. It anticipates legal scrutiny and aims to provide a fallback that aligns with established legal precedent.
Case for: Supporters argue it demonstrates legislative prudence and ensures the bill's intent to expand denaturalization grounds is preserved, even if the 10-year period is deemed too aggressive or constitutionally infirm by courts. It provides a robust alternative.
Case against: Critics might argue it implicitly acknowledges the constitutional vulnerability of the 10-year period and could be seen as an attempt to preempt or influence judicial review by dictating the alternative outcome. It highlights the potential legal fragility of the primary provisions.
Estimated impact: Ensures the denaturalization provisions retain a significant look-back period (at least 5 years) even if the 10-year period is challenged, affecting the scope of potential denaturalization cases and the legal vulnerability of naturalized citizens.