Why a Minnesota denaturalization case could have bigger implications

In a Minnesota courtroom more than a decade ago, federal prosecutors said Salah Osman Ahmed had helped the US government.

A judge was about to decide the former security guard’s fate, 14 years after he’d immigrated to Minnesota, four years after he’d pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists, and seven months after he’d taken the stand as a cooperating witness in a high-profile trial.

On a morning in May 2013, when it was time for a decision in Ahmed’s own case, prosecutors cited his “substantial assistance” and recommended a reduced sentence.

“Mr. Ahmed’s post-arrest candor, I think, was very important,” prosecutor William Narus told a judge as he described the rationale behind the government’s request.

But in a lawsuit filed this year in the same court, a different team of federal prosecutors painted a harsher picture of Ahmed. The 44-year-old’s US citizenship should be revoked, they argued, because of the months he spent as an al-Shabaab recruit in Somalia in late 2007 and early 2008.

“Defendant’s material support for this terrorist group so shortly after he gained citizenship establishes that when he naturalized, he lacked the requisite attachment to the principles of the Constitution and dedication to the good order and happiness of the United States,” the suit states.

Now once again, it will be up to a judge to decide Ahmed’s fate.

The case against Ahmed is part of what Attorney General Todd Blanche bills as “the largest denaturalization effort in modern history.” Researchers say more than 170 civil denaturalization lawsuits have been filed since President Donald Trump’s second term began.

But several details about this Minnesota case make it different from others on the docket, according to experts who spoke with CNN. It could have far-reaching implications in other terrorism cases, they say, and signals the government is now willing to invoke portions of the law that haven’t been used before as part of its widening denaturalization campaign.

“This is important beyond just this one case,” says Irina Manta, a visiting professor at Villanova University’s Charles Widger School of Law who studies denaturalization. “I really think they are testing the limits here.”

Revoking someone’s citizenship returns them to the immigration status they had before naturalization. That potentially makes them vulnerable to deportation proceedings, if the government decides to pursue another case in immigration court.

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller has called denaturalization a “turbocharged” priority. But the process is still relatively rare — and difficult by design .

In civil denaturalization cases, the government must provide “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence,” and a federal judge has the final say.

So far, fewer than 200 civil denaturalization cases have been filed since January 2025 — a minuscule fraction of the estimated 26 million naturalized American citizens . But the number of lawsuits filed under this administration is significantly higher than any other recent presidency. Federal prosecutors have filed more this year alone than the total number previously filed over the course of nearly two decades, according to an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse of case filings through September 28, 2026.

A recent raid on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s DC-area home as part of what sources describe as an immigration-fraud probe brought increased attention to the administration’s intensifying focus on denaturalization. The Justice Department has not revealed any evidence against Omar or indicated it would take steps to denaturalize the Minnesota congresswoman. She has not been charged with any crime and denies any wrongdoing.

Even before the raid at her house made headlines, officials have been picking up the pace in their denaturalization efforts for months .

“Individuals implicated in committing fraud, heinous crimes such as sexual abuse, or expressing support for terrorism should never have been naturalized as United States citizens,” Blanche said in a May press release detailing the cases against Ahmed and 11 other defendants. “The Trump administration is taking action to correct these egregious violations of our immigration system.”

Like many of the civil denaturalization lawsuits filed so far, the case against Ahmed targets someone with a serious criminal conviction. He was sentenced to three years in prison for his admitted support of terrorists. Other recent denaturalization cases announced by the government have targeted convicted child molesters, fraudsters and spies.

But according to Ahmed’s lawyer, the denaturalization case against his client is “shameful” — and glosses over significant details.

“He helped them put together their terrorism case,” attorney Daniel Gerdts told CNN. “Their reward for him doing that is to take away his citizenship. That makes us look terrible as a nation.”

Ahmed, who declined to comment to CNN through his attorney, said in earlier court proceedings that he came to the United States when he was 15 years old . He became a US citizen as a 24-year-old in August 2007, according to court records. And four months later, according to court documents, he was on a flight bound for Somalia to join al-Shabaab’s fight against Ethiopian troops who had invaded his home country the previous year.

“To be honest, I don’t know what I was thinking,” Ahmed testified in 2012, “but I said, ‘OK, let’s go, let’s stop the Ethiopians taking over the country.’”

He spent time in an al-Shabaab safe house, raised funds, underwent some weapons training and helped clear land for a training camp, then fled after several months and returned to the US, according to court records.

Federal agents arrested Ahmed in July 2009 as part of an investigation into the recruitment pipeline that was funneling youth from Minnesota’s Somali immigrant communities into al-Shabaab. He pleaded guilty later that month to providing material support to terrorists, admitting he’d engaged in a criminal conspiracy to kill Ethiopians.

In 2012, Ahmed was a cooperating witness in the trial of Mahamud Said Omar, a mosque janitor who was convicted and later sentenced to 20 years in prison for his role funneling money to al-Shabaab and recruiting fighters for the terrorist group from the Twin Cities.

During Ahmed’s 2013 sentencing hearing, the prosecutor said Ahmed had committed a serious crime, but he also noted that Ahmed’s decision to leave al-Shabaab was “commendable,” according to a transcript of the proceedings. Of all the defendants prosecuted in the investigation, Narus said, Ahmed had made “the cleanest break” away from the terrorist organization.

“I don’t want to be a terrorist. I didn’t sign up and I will never be — that’s one of the reasons I left,” Ahmed told the judge that day, adding that he was thankful to be in court and vowing to be a better man.

“I’m so grateful that I am speaking and have life to be in the United States. I’m so grateful and I will never want to lose that,” he said.

If the denaturalization case against him succeeds, Ahmed’s days in the US could be numbered.

But in an August court filing, his lawyer denied the accusation that Ahmed “lacked the requisite attachment to the principles of the Constitution” when he became a US citizen. In a response pushing back on many of the government’s justifications for revoking Ahmed’s citizenship, Attorney Daniel Gerdts argued that Ahmed had travelled to Somalia before the US government officially designated al-Shabaab a foreign terrorist organization, and that he was never a member of the group. Gerdts also argued the government should be blocked from seeking denaturalization now given that previously “it praised and rewarded Defendant’s substantial contributions to the national security and law enforcement of the United States.”

Ahmed’s attorney isn’t the only one concerned about that facet of the case.

Revoking a cooperating witness’ citizenship and making them vulnerable to deportation could have far-reaching implications beyond this case, a former federal law enforcement official who’s worked on similar counterterrorism cases in the past told CNN.

Other potential cooperating witnesses in terrorism cases would be far less likely to agree to help the US government in the future, according to the former official, who asked not to be identified because they feared retaliation for speaking out.

“The wrong thing is happening here,” the former official said. “Nobody’s going to cooperate. This is so short-sighted just as a policy matter that it’s totally counterproductive to our national security.”

If denaturalization and deportation are on the table, the calculus will be different for would-be witnesses weighing whether to testify against terrorist organizations that are still active in their home countries, the former official said. “Probably you won’t do it, because you’ll get killed.”

Asked about Ahmed’s case and concerns that trying to strip citizenship from a cooperating witness could have a broader impact, a Department of Justice spokesperson reiterated officials’ commitment to pursuing denaturalization cases.

“The Department of Justice follows the facts and the law in each case,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The Department’s denaturalization efforts are historic and remain a top priority for this administration.”

Moving to denaturalize a cooperating witness aligns with the “scorched earth policy” on immigration that the second Trump administration has adopted, according to Wadie Said, a law professor at the University of Colorado and author of “Crimes of Terror: The Legal and Political Implications of Federal Terrorism Prosecutions.”

“It just strikes me as a really poor exercise of judgment,” he said.

This isn’t the first time officials have tried to revoke the citizenship of a cooperating witness. Prosecutors previously pursued a denaturalization case against a woman who’d helped investigators in a fraud case against her employer, according to Cassandra Burke Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University.

“She cooperated in making the case against her boss. And then the first Trump administration, after she had pleaded guilty and served the probation, used that as a rationale to strip her citizenship,” Robertson said.

The question isn’t whether the government can move to denaturalize a cooperating witness, but whether it should, according to CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller.

“It’s not a question of technicality. It’s a question of equity. Is it the right thing to do?” said Miller, who previously served as the New York Police Department’s deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism and as an assistant director of the FBI.

Cooperating witnesses often play an essential role in terrorism cases, Miller said.

“You can only get so far with undercover videos and undercover operators and undercover tapes,” he said. “There’s nothing like a live witness who was a part of that conversation or a part of that group or a part of that plot.”

Word that the government is targeting a cooperating witness is likely to spread, Miller said.

“You have to ask yourself, ‘Why are we doing this, and what’s the effect going to be on future cooperators?’ It is an insular community. And word will get around,” he said.

It could be months or even years before the case against Ahmed makes its way through the court system. But already it’s catching the attention of some scholars and advocates.

The legal argument authorities are making is one reason why.

Most denaturalization cases focus on crimes committed before someone becomes a citizen, or on alleged fraud during the naturalization process. In this case, authorities are arguing that Ahmed’s citizenship should be revoked because of conduct that allegedly occurred after he became an American.

To do that, they’re invoking a McCarthy-era provision of the law that’s rarely, if ever, been used, said Manta, the Villanova visiting professor. The provision will likely face legal challenges over its constitutionality, she said.

“As far as I’m aware, there has actually never been a case that relied solely on this provision … No government, no regime has been aggressive enough to try it,” Manta said. “But this regime has announced that it wants essentially quotas of how many people it’s going to denaturalize. So, when you have a quota, you’re going to try to find anything and everything … to find cases that maybe otherwise wouldn’t have been able to fly.”

Naturalization laws block someone from obtaining US citizenship if they are affiliated with certain organizations , including the Communist Party or any groups that advocate violently overthrowing the US government or “the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property.”

The provision invoked in Ahmed’s case states that if someone joins or affiliates with such organizations within five years after naturalization, it’s seen as evidence that they weren’t “attached to the principles” of the US Constitution when they became citizens.

The Justice Department hasn’t responded to questions from CNN about its use of the provision in this case, or whether officials have plans to use it in additional prosecutions. So far, according to a denaturalization case tracker from the advocacy organization Democracy Forward, available court records show Trump administration officials are citing this provision in two cases: Ahmed’s and a Missouri denaturalization case against a man who pleaded guilty to providing material support to al Qaeda.

But some advocates say they’re concerned the provision could be applied more broadly in the future, applying not only to a rapidly growing number of designated terrorist groups , but also to others accused of endangering national security or being enemies of a presidential administration. It’s possible, they say, that political opponents could one day find themselves on the receiving end of a denaturalization lawsuit.

“No one can or should be denaturalized for engaging in political conduct that this administration disagrees with. But this administration may try,” said Steven Salky, an attorney who is helping to track denaturalization filings and creating a clearinghouse to match cases with pro bono lawyers .

Using post-naturalization conduct to allege earlier disloyalty could have a chilling effect, Manta said, making naturalized Americans fear that what they say and who they associate with could be used against them.

Already, she said, the recent raid targeting Omar has intensified concerns about “weaponization of denaturalization and silencing of political speech.”

“People have been naturalized for years, have done nothing wrong, have no reason to believe that the government would find anything legitimately that they did wrong, and still, they’re afraid,” she said.

But some see the recent case against Ahmed as a reminder that denaturalization laws aren’t tough enough.

In June, a Michigan congressman cited the case when announcing a proposed law that would automatically denaturalize someone convicted of terror-related charges.

“Under current law, a naturalized citizen cannot be removed even for the most violent acts of terror without first going through the slow and complex denaturalization process. This loophole has allowed individuals who embraced terrorist ideologies after gaining citizenship to remain shielded from swift removal,” a statement from Rep. Bill Huizenga’s office said when he introduced his “Deport the Terrorists Act.”

That measure remains in committee, but the Trump administration’s denaturalization push shows no signs of slowing.

So far, cases have been filed in at least 40 US states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, according to data compiled by TRAC.

Researchers say the actual number of denaturalization cases could be higher than their latest estimates, as filings are difficult to track and obtain due to privacy restrictions.

Officials have promised there are more cases to come.

“This administration will continue to pursue the largest denaturalization effort in department history,” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said in a statement as the Justice Department announced a batch of 40 cases earlier this month , “to restore trust and integrity in U.S. citizenship.”

And in the Minnesota District Court where Ahmed’s case will be heard, lawyers are already gearing up for a fight.

Federal prosecutors last week asked the judge assigned to the case to be disqualified from hearing it , arguing that because of comments he made to The New York Times about how courts were impacted by the government’s handling of Operation Metro Surge last winter in Minneapolis, he “cannot then preside over a case concerning one of the Justice Department’s key immigration initiatives.”

A spokesperson for Minnesota’s US district court says the interviews judges gave to the Times were “well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges.” And Gerdts says he plans to oppose the government’s “baseless” motion.

A hearing over the matter is scheduled for next month.

CNN’s Michael Williams contributed to this report.

十多年前，在明尼苏达州的一个法庭上，联邦检察官表示，萨拉赫·奥斯曼·艾哈迈德曾帮助过美国政府。

法官即将决定这位前保安的命运。14年前，他移民到明尼苏达州；4年前，他承认向恐怖分子提供物质支持；7个月前，他作为合作证人出庭作证，参与了一场备受瞩目的审判。

2013 年 5 月的一个早晨，到了对艾哈迈德本人案件作出决定的时候，检察官们援引了他的“实质性帮助”，建议减轻刑罚。

“我认为，艾哈迈德先生被捕后的坦诚非常重要，”检察官威廉·纳鲁斯在向法官描述政府提出此项请求的理由时说道。

但在今年向同一法院提起的一项诉讼中，另一组联邦检察官对艾哈迈德的描述更为严厉。他们认为，由于艾哈迈德在2007年末至2008年初期间在索马里作为青年党新兵待了数月，因此应该撤销这位44岁男子的美国公民身份。

诉讼称：“被告在获得公民身份后不久就对该恐怖组织提供实质性支持，这表明他在入籍时缺乏对宪法原则的必要认同以及对美国良好秩序和幸福的奉献精神。”

现在，艾哈迈德的命运将再次由法官来决定。

针对艾哈迈德的案件是司法部长托德·布兰奇所称的“现代史上规模最大的取消公民身份行动”的一部分。研究人员表示，自唐纳德·特朗普总统第二个任期开始以来，已提起超过170起民事取消公民身份诉讼。

但据接受CNN采访的专家称，明尼苏达州这起案件的几个细节使其与其他待审案件有所不同。他们表示，这可能对其他恐怖主义案件产生深远影响，并表明政府现在愿意援引此前从未动用过的法律条款，作为其不断扩大的取消公民身份行动的一部分。

“这不仅仅关乎这一个案件，”维拉诺瓦大学查尔斯·威杰法学院研究取消公民身份问题的客座教授伊琳娜·曼塔说，“我真的认为他们是在试探底线。”

撤销某人的公民身份会使其恢复到入籍前的移民身份。如果政府决定在移民法庭提起另一项诉讼，这可能使其面临被驱逐出境的风险。

白宫副幕僚长斯蒂芬·米勒称取消公民身份是“重点推进”的优先事项。但这一程序仍然相对罕见，而且刻意设置了重重障碍。

在民事取消公民身份案件中，政府必须提供“清晰、明确和令人信服的证据”，最终由联邦法官做出裁决。

自2025年1月以来，民事撤销入籍案件不足200起，仅占美国约2600万入籍公民总数的一小部分。但本届政府提起的诉讼数量远高于其他任何一届总统任期。根据交易记录访问中心（Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse）对截至2026年9月28日案件档案的分析，仅今年一年，联邦检察官提起的诉讼数量就超过了此前近二十年提起诉讼的总数。

近日，美国众议员伊尔汗·奥马尔位于华盛顿特区附近的住所遭到突击搜查，据消息人士透露，此次搜查是针对她涉嫌移民欺诈的调查的一部分。此次行动也引发了人们对美国政府日益重视取消公民身份的关注。司法部尚未公布任何针对奥马尔的证据，也未表示将采取措施取消这位明尼苏达州女议员的公民身份。奥马尔本人并未被指控任何罪行，并否认有任何不当行为。

甚至在她家遭到突袭成为新闻头条之前，官员们几个月来一直在加快取消其公民身份的步伐。

“那些涉嫌欺诈、犯下性侵等滔天罪行或公开支持恐怖主义的人，根本不应该被授予美国公民身份，”布兰奇在五月份的一份新闻稿中详细列举了针对艾哈迈德和其他11名被告的案件时说道。“特朗普政府正在采取行动，纠正这些对我们移民制度的严重破坏。”

与迄今为止提起的许多民事取消公民身份诉讼一样，针对艾哈迈德的案件也针对有严重刑事犯罪记录的人。他因承认支持恐怖分子而被判处三年监禁。政府近期宣布的其他取消公民身份案件的目标还包括被判犯有猥亵儿童罪、诈骗罪和间谍罪的人。

但据艾哈迈德的律师称，针对他当事人的取消国籍诉讼“令人羞耻”，并且掩盖了许多重要细节。

“他帮助他们收集了恐怖主义证据，”律师丹尼尔·格尔茨告诉CNN。“他们给他的回报是剥夺他的公民身份。这让我们国家颜面尽失。”

艾哈迈德通过律师拒绝就此事接受CNN采访。他此前在法庭上表示，自己15岁时来到美国。法庭记录显示，他于2007年8月，24岁时成为美国公民。四个月后，据法庭文件显示，他搭乘飞机前往索马里，加入青年党对抗入侵其祖国的埃塞俄比亚军队。

“说实话，我不知道我当时在想什么，”艾哈迈德在 2012 年作证时说，“但我说，‘好吧，我们走吧，阻止埃塞俄比亚人接管这个国家。’”

据法庭记录显示，他曾在青年党的一个安全屋待过一段时间，筹集资金，接受了一些武器训练，并帮助清理土地建立训练营，几个月后逃离并返回美国。

2009年7月，联邦特工逮捕了艾哈迈德，这是他们调查一条将明尼苏达州索马里移民社区的年轻人输送到青年党的招募渠道的一部分。当月晚些时候，他承认向恐怖分子提供物质支持，并承认自己参与了杀害埃塞俄比亚人的犯罪阴谋。

2012 年，艾哈迈德在马哈茂德·赛义德·奥马尔的审判中担任合作证人。奥马尔是一名清真寺清洁工，他因向青年党输送资金并从双子城招募武装分子而被定罪，后被判处 20 年监禁。

根据庭审记录，在艾哈迈德2013年的量刑听证会上，检察官表示艾哈迈德犯下了严重的罪行，但也指出艾哈迈德离开青年党的决定“值得称赞”。纳鲁斯说，在所有被调查的被告中，艾哈迈德与该恐怖组织的脱离“最为彻底”。

“我不想成为恐怖分子。我没有加入，也永远不会加入——这也是我离开的原因之一，”艾哈迈德当天告诉法官，并补充说他很感激能出庭，并发誓要成为一个更好的人。

“我非常感激我能够在这里演讲，能够在美国生活。我非常感激，我永远都不想失去这一切，”他说。

如果针对他的取消国籍诉讼成功，艾哈迈德在美国的日子可能就屈指可数了。

但在8月份提交的一份法庭文件中，他的律师否认了艾哈迈德在成为美国公民时“缺乏对宪法原则的必要认同”的指控。律师丹尼尔·格尔茨在回应中反驳了政府撤销艾哈迈德公民身份的诸多理由，他辩称，艾哈迈德在美方正式将青年党列为外国恐怖组织之前就已前往索马里，而且他从未加入过该组织。格尔茨还辩称，鉴于此前“政府曾赞扬并奖励被告对美国国家安全和执法部门做出的重大贡献”，因此现在不应再寻求取消艾哈迈德的公民身份。

艾哈迈德的律师并不是唯一一个对案件这一方面感到担忧的人。

一位曾在类似反恐案件中工作过的前联邦执法官员告诉 CNN，撤销合作证人的公民身份并使其面临被驱逐出境的风险，可能会产生超出本案范围的深远影响。

这位前官员表示，其他潜在的恐怖主义案件合作证人未来不太可能同意帮助美国政府。由于担心因公开谈论此事而遭到报复，该官员要求匿名。

这位前官员说：“这里发生的事情不对劲。没人会合作。这项政策目光短浅，完全不利于国家安全。”

这位前官员表示，如果取消国籍和驱逐出境都在考虑范围内，那么对于那些正在权衡是否要指证仍在本国活动的恐怖组织的潜在证人来说，考量就会有所不同。“你可能不会这么做，因为你会因此丧命。”

当被问及艾哈迈德的案件以及试图剥夺合作证人的公民身份可能会产生更广泛的影响时，司法部发言人重申了官员们致力于追查取消公民身份案件的决心。

司法部发言人在一份声明中表示：“司法部在每个案件中都遵循事实和法律。司法部取消公民身份的举措具有历史意义，并且仍然是本届政府的首要任务。”

科罗拉多大学法学教授、著有《恐怖犯罪：联邦恐怖主义起诉的法律和政治影响》一书的瓦迪·赛义德表示，取消合作证人的公民身份与特朗普第二届政府在移民问题上采取的“焦土政策”相一致。

“在我看来，这简直是判断力严重不足的表现，”他说。

这并非官员们首次试图撤销合作证人的公民身份。据凯斯西储大学法学教授卡桑德拉·伯克·罗伯逊称，此前检察官曾对一名协助调查人员侦破其雇主诈骗案的女子提起取消公民身份的诉讼。

罗伯逊说：“她曾配合指控她的老板。然后，在她认罪并服完缓刑后，第一届特朗普政府以此为由剥夺了她的公民身份。”

据 CNN 首席执法和情报分析师约翰·米勒称，问题不在于政府是否可以取消合作证人的公民身份，而在于政府是否应该这样做。

“这不是技术性问题，而是公平问题。这样做是否正确？”米勒说道。他曾担任纽约警察局情报和反恐副局长以及联邦调查局助理局长。

米勒表示，合作证人在恐怖主义案件中往往发挥着至关重要的作用。

他说：“光靠卧底视频、卧底人员和卧底录像只能做到这一步。没有什么比得上亲身参与对话、参与团伙或参与阴谋的证人。”

米勒说，政府盯上合作证人的消息很可能会传开。

“你必须问问自己，‘我们为什么要这样做，这对未来的合作者会有什么影响？’这是一个封闭的圈子。消息很快就会传开，”他说。

针对艾哈迈德的案件可能需要数月甚至数年才能走完司法程序。但它已经引起了一些学者和维权人士的关注。

当局提出的法律论据是其中一个原因。

大多数取消公民身份的案件都集中在入籍前所犯的罪行，或入籍过程中涉嫌的欺诈行为。而本案中，当局认为艾哈迈德的公民身份应该被撤销，原因是他在成为美国公民后涉嫌实施了某些行为。

维拉诺瓦大学客座教授曼塔表示，为了达到这个目的，他们援引了麦卡锡时代一项鲜少使用、甚至从未使用过的法律条款。她还说，这项条款很可能会因其合宪性而面临法律挑战。

“据我所知，实际上从未有过完全依赖这一条款的案例……没有任何政府、政权会如此激进地尝试这样做，”曼塔说。“但本届政权已经宣布，它实际上想要设定取消公民身份的配额。所以，一旦有了配额，你就会想方设法寻找任何理由……寻找那些原本可能无法得逞的案例。”

入籍法禁止与某些组织有关联的人获得美国公民身份，这些组织包括共产党或任何鼓吹以暴力手段推翻美国政府或“非法破坏、伤害或毁坏财产”的团体。

艾哈迈德案中援引的条款规定，如果某人在入籍五年内加入或隶属于此类组织，则被视为证明他们在成为公民时没有“认同”美国宪法的原则。

司法部尚未回应CNN关于其在本案中使用该条款的提问，也未说明官员是否计划在其他诉讼中使用该条款。据倡导组织“民主向前”（Democracy Forward）的取消入籍案件追踪器显示，目前已公开的法庭记录表明，特朗普政府官员在两起案件中援引了该条款：一起是艾哈迈德的案件，另一起是密苏里州针对一名承认向基地组织提供物质支持的男子的取消入籍案件。

但一些倡导者表示，他们担心这项条款未来可能会被更广泛地适用，不仅适用于数量迅速增长的被认定为恐怖组织的团体，还可能适用于其他被指控危害国家安全或与总统政府为敌的团体。他们指出，政治对手或许有一天会面临取消公民身份的诉讼。

“任何人都不能也不应该因为从事本届政府不认同的政治行为而被剥夺公民身份。但本届政府可能会尝试这样做，”史蒂文·萨尔基说道，他是一名律师，正在帮助追踪剥夺公民身份的申请，并创建一个信息中心，将案件与公益律师进行匹配。

曼塔表示，利用入籍后的行为来指控早期的不忠行为可能会产生寒蝉效应，使入籍美国人担心他们所说的话以及他们交往的人可能会被用来对付他们。

她表示，最近针对奥马尔的突袭行动已经加剧了人们对“剥夺公民权和压制政治言论”的担忧。

“人们入籍多年，没有做错任何事，也没有任何理由相信政府会合法地发现他们做错了什么，但他们仍然感到害怕，”她说。

但有些人认为，最近针对艾哈迈德的案件提醒人们，取消国籍的法律还不够严厉。

今年 6 月，密歇根州的一位国会议员在宣布一项拟议法律时引用了此案，该法律将自动取消被判犯有恐怖主义相关罪行的人的公民身份。

“根据现行法律，即使犯下最严重的恐怖罪行，入籍公民也不能在未经漫长而复杂的取消入籍程序的情况下被驱逐出境。这一漏洞使得那些在获得公民身份后接受恐怖主义意识形态的人得以免于被迅速驱逐出境。”众议员比尔·惠曾加办公室在惠曾加提出“驱逐恐怖分子法案”时发表声明称。

该法案仍在委员会审议中，但特朗普政府推动取消公民身份的步伐没有丝毫放缓的迹象。

根据 TRAC 汇编的数据，目前至少有 40 个美国州、哥伦比亚特区和波多黎各提起了诉讼。

研究人员表示，由于隐私限制，申请文件难以追踪和获取，因此实际的取消入籍案件数量可能高于他们最新的估计。

官方已承诺还会有更多病例出现。

“本届政府将继续推进司法部历史上规模最大的取消公民身份行动，”司法部助理部长布雷特·舒梅特在本月初宣布一批 40 起案件时发表声明说，“以恢复美国公民身份的信任和诚信。”

在艾哈迈德的案件将要审理的明尼苏达州地方法院，律师们已经开始为一场战斗做准备。

上周，联邦检察官要求取消该案指定法官的审理资格，理由是该法官去年冬天在明尼阿波利斯接受《纽约时报》采访时，就政府处理“地铁突击行动”对法院的影响发表了评论，因此他“不能审理涉及司法部一项重要移民举措的案件”。

明尼苏达州联邦地区法院发言人表示，法官们接受《纽约时报》采访“完全符合适用于联邦法官的道德准则”。格尔茨法官则表示，他计划反对政府提出的“毫无根据”的动议。

此事将于下个月举行听证会。

CNN的迈克尔·威廉姆斯对本报道亦有贡献。