HB8341, titled the DEPORT Act of 2026, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require every naturalization applicant to sign an oath-based attestation disavowing any current or future intent to commit specified terrorism-related offenses. The bill directs the Department of Homeland Security to revise Form N-400 and the oath of allegiance to include these new statements, and it defines “covered offenses” broadly to include federal terrorism crimes, material support offenses, terrorism financing, weapons of mass destruction offenses, hostage taking, aircraft and maritime terrorism, sedition-related conduct, and related attempts or conspiracies.
The bill also expands denaturalization and removal authority. It would make certain terrorism convictions, memberships, support activities, and other credible evidence grounds for revoking naturalization, including for some people naturalized before the new attestation requirement took effect. It creates rebuttable presumptions that a later covered conviction shows the original naturalization was obtained through concealment or misrepresentation, authorizes civil denaturalization proceedings in federal court, requires DHS to begin removal proceedings after revocation, and allows continued detention in some terrorism-related cases, including where statelessness would otherwise prevent immediate removal.
Beyond denaturalization, the bill would make anyone convicted of a covered offense inadmissible, bar such individuals from most immigration benefits and forms of relief, and impose a permanent inadmissibility bar with no waiver for certain terrorist offenders and denaturalized persons. It also states that denaturalized persons are deportable, revokes previously granted immigration status upon a final order, and applies these changes to convictions entered on or after enactment, even if the underlying conduct occurred earlier.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly punitive and security-focused, with the sponsors framing the measure as a terrorism-prevention and removal tool. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented bipartisan debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. The structure of the bill suggests an emphasis on aggressive enforcement, national security, and post-naturalization accountability.
The main points of contention likely center on civil liberties, due process, retroactivity, and the breadth of the terrorism-related definitions. The bill authorizes denaturalization based on later convictions, certain associations, and even credible evidence in some circumstances, which could raise concerns about evidentiary standards, the use of classified information, indefinite or prolonged detention, and potential constitutional issues for people who would otherwise become stateless. Critics would likely focus on whether the bill goes beyond existing denaturalization authority, while supporters would likely emphasize public safety and preventing terrorists from obtaining or retaining U.S. citizenship.
The bill would amend multiple sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act to add a new terrorism-attestation requirement for naturalization, expand grounds and procedures for denaturalization, and create new immigration consequences for covered terrorism offenses. It would affect naturalization applicants, naturalized citizens, noncitizens with terrorism-related convictions or conduct, and agencies including DHS, DOJ, and the federal courts. It also would require changes to Form N-400, the oath of allegiance, removal procedures, detention authority, inadmissibility rules, and eligibility for immigration benefits and waivers.
The bill’s tone and structure indicate strong support from its sponsors for a hardline national-security approach to immigration and citizenship. No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no evidence of formal opposition or compromise in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to lawmakers prioritizing counterterrorism, denaturalization, and deportation enforcement.
Likely areas of contention include the bill’s retroactive application to some prior naturalizations, the use of rebuttable presumptions and civil proceedings to support denaturalization, and the reliance on broad categories such as material support, membership, and credible evidence of conduct. Another major issue is detention and removal of denaturalized persons, especially where statelessness may result. Supporters would likely argue the bill is necessary to protect national security and close loopholes, while opponents would likely question due process protections, proportionality, and whether the bill expands denaturalization and immigration penalties too far.