There is strong reason to believe that a significant proportion of denaturalizations have or will result in statelessness. This is based on an analysis of the citizenship laws of defendants’ designated countries of origin. Over one-third of the cases filed can be classified as reflecting the Operation Janus and Operation Second Look approach of using digital records to identify potential cases for denaturalization, and using denaturalization as a means of enforcing immigration law.9 This approach is new in its scope and in its overall lack of restraint in deploying such a radical remedy, with disastrous personal consequences for the affected individuals. There is a significant correlation between the countries of origin most commonly represented in denaturalization cases (including Mexico, Haiti, and Nigeria) and countries that President Trump has publicly demeaned. This suggests selective targeting based on national origin, as a proxy for race, ethnicity, and religion, and contributes to the overall charge that the administration is seeking to exclude immigrants and citizens because of its nativist ideology. Forty-nine percent of all civil denaturalization cases filed target citizens whose country of origin is a “special interest country,” an evolving list compiled by the U.S. government that includes India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, among others. The decision to prioritize Janus and Second Look cases based on national origin in a “special interest country” naturally leads to a disproportionate number of cases filed against visible minorities, and imposes collective suspicion on U.S. citizens with ties to these countries—including ties that may have been severed for decades. The practice is arbitrary, over-inclusive, and applies unequal treatment based on national origin; it is in plain conflict with the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. An in-depth analysis of denaturalization cases underscores the missing procedural safeguards that have never been adequately addressed. These procedural shortcomings include the lack of a right to counsel in civil cases (in more than 25% of civil proceedings, those threatened with denaturalization had no representation), the absence of protection against deportation pending appeal, and the lack of an appropriate statute of limitations, with cases filed as many as 24 years following a citizen’s naturalization. Finally, the elaborate operations detailed here, including scouring hundreds of thousands of files in pursuit of potential naturalization fraud—which began with the identification of 206 possible cases in 2008—represent a remarkably mismatched investment. The means employed, including using some of the most advanced and all-encompassing population databases in the world, require significant reconsideration and enhanced oversight. The denaturalization statutes, already heavily flawed, are far too elastic to safeguard the rights of naturalized Americans in the face of this unprecedented and highly problematic new form of targeting. Executive Summary 11