In a provocative and constitutionally dubious statement posted this morning on Truth Social, Donald Trump said he is “giving serious consideration” to revoking the U.S. citizenship of actress and longtime critic Rosie O’Donnell, citing her as a “threat to humanity” and suggesting she “should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her.”
The full post reads:
“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her.”
The comment, though not tied to any formal government action, quickly sparked concern among legal scholars, civil rights advocates, and political commentators. While Trump has frequently used his social media platform to insult or threaten critics, Thursday’s post stands out for invoking the prospect of revoking a political opponent’s citizenship — an idea incompatible with established American law.
Apologies for the double email this morning, but the idea that a U.S. President would even think that they had the power to unilaterally strip someone of their citizenship is significant. Please consider subscribing to support my work and to continue getting rapid fire updates:
No Legal Authority to Strip Citizenship
Under the U.S. Constitution, citizenship is not something a president can grant or take away at will. The 14th Amendment explicitly guarantees that all persons born in the United States are citizens. Rosie O’Donnell was born in Commack, New York, in 1962, and is therefore a natural-born citizen.
Even beyond constitutional text, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the government cannot forcibly revoke citizenship. In the landmark 1967 case Afroyim v. Rusk, the Court ruled 5-4 that the U.S. government could not strip an American of citizenship without their consent, even in cases where the individual voted in a foreign election — a far more substantial legal trigger than expressing political dissent.
The decision established that citizenship, once acquired legally and constitutionally, is a protected right — not a privilege contingent upon loyalty to any political party or figure.
There are extremely narrow circumstances under which citizenship may be lost or renounced — such as voluntary expatriation, fraud during naturalization, or serving in a foreign military engaged in hostilities against the U.S. But even those cases require clear legal standards and due process. None would apply to a U.S.-born citizen making public criticisms of the sitting president.
Political Context and Authoritarian Overtones
While no legal action has been initiated against O'Donnell — and it’s likely none will be — the rhetoric itself is not without consequences. President Trump’s remarks mark a further erosion of the rhetorical boundary between private grievance and official power.
Critics argue that the president’s language reflects an authoritarian impulse: the idea that political opposition itself is un-American, and that those who voice it should face state punishment.
This is not the first time Trump has targeted Rosie O’Donnell. Their feud dates back to 2006, when O’Donnell, then a co-host on The View, publicly criticized Trump’s business ethics and personal behavior. Trump responded with personal insults, launching a media-fueled back-and-forth that persisted through his presidency. But the stakes are different now: Trump is once again in the Oval Office, wielding the full powers of the presidency — and signaling a willingness to blur personal vendettas with executive authority.
What makes Thursday’s post notable is not just its vitriol, but its premise: that a sitting president is even entertaining the idea of revoking citizenship from a native-born American because of her political views.
Democratic Norms Under Pressure
The United States has long considered citizenship a fundamental right, closely tied to identity, security, and legal protections. To suggest that it could be revoked over political disagreement flies in the face of democratic norms and constitutional guarantees.
Experts on authoritarian regimes have often pointed to similar rhetorical patterns in declining democracies: the designation of critics as enemies of the state, the personalization of state power, and the use of threats — legal or symbolic — to silence dissent.
Though no formal policy was announced, the power of the presidency lies not just in its legal authority but in its ability to set tone and signal intent. Trump’s language, critics warn, could embolden those who view political disagreement not as a democratic right but as a form of disloyalty deserving of punishment.
Whether the statement was intended seriously or not, it raises troubling questions about how Trump envisions the limits of his authority and the rights of those who oppose him.
No Response Yet from O'Donnell
As of this morning, Rosie O’Donnell has not publicly responded to the president’s remarks. She has been an outspoken critic of Trump since his first campaign, frequently using her platform to challenge his policies and rhetoric.
It's unclear whether the White House press office will issue a clarification or whether the statement reflects any ongoing legal review — although, again, the law leaves no ambiguity on the matter.
Conclusion
President Trump cannot revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship — not legally, not procedurally, not constitutionally. But the fact that he suggested he could, or even should, underscores deeper concerns about the direction of American political discourse and the future of democratic norms.
In a country built on the idea that dissent is not only protected but vital, the notion that a sitting president would entertain the removal of citizenship as a punishment for criticism is not just inflammatory — it’s chilling.
Share this post