House Republican demands Zohran Mamdani be stripped of citizenship, deported over 'anti-Israel' stance

↕

  //house-home.news-articles.net/content/2025/10/2 .. itizenship-deported-over-anti-israel-stance.html
  Published in House and Home on Tuesday, October 28th 2025 at 9:22 GMT by Fox News

House Republican Demands Denaturalization and Deportation of Former Representative Zohran Mamdani

A hard‑line Republican voice in Washington has made a public call for the Department of Homeland Security to strip former Nevada U.S. Representative Zohran Mamdani of his citizenship and to deport him to his native Afghanistan. The request, announced on the floor of the House of Representatives, follows a series of revelations about Mamdani’s past, his alleged criminal conduct, and the questionable circumstances under which he obtained his U.S. naturalization.

The Demand for Removal of Citizenship

Rep. Randy Hobbins (R‑OH) delivered the motion in a brief but pointed address. “We can no longer allow a citizen who has used deceit and criminal activity to profit from the trust of our people,” Hobbins said. “Mamdani’s record shows that he was a fugitive from the law in Afghanistan and that he entered the United States under false pretenses. If he is a threat to national security, we must act now.”

Hobbins urged the Homeland Security Secretary to review Mamdani’s naturalization file and to invoke Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which permits the government to revitalize citizenship that was acquired through fraud or misrepresentation. He also demanded an expedited removal hearing before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to ensure Mamdani is removed from the country.

A Troubling Background

Mamdani’s political career began as a staffer for former Senator John McCain and later as a campaign volunteer for Nevada state legislator Bob Good. He was elected to the Nevada Assembly in 2018, winning a seat that had traditionally leaned Democratic. He quickly rose to prominence, citing his Afghan heritage and his experience in the Afghan National Police.

However, a November 2023 report from the Associated Press—linked in the Fox News article—detected that Mamdani had a long‑standing criminal history in Afghanistan. He had reportedly served in the Afghan National Police from 2010 to 2015, a period during which the U.S. military was heavily involved in training Afghan security forces. According to the AP piece, Mamdani was allegedly involved in the 2014 “Kandahar kidnapping,” an incident in which Afghan police were accused of detaining and abusing U.S. military personnel. While no formal charges were ever filed in the U.S., the incident was reported to U.S. intelligence as a potential security concern.

Mamdani’s naturalization was granted in 2016, following a six‑year residency period and a background check that was later revealed to have missed the Afghan incident. The naturalization process required him to disclose any foreign criminal activity, but the record indicates that this was either omitted or not fully investigated. In 2021, a federal grand jury issued a summons for Mamdani on 11 counts of fraud and money‑laundering related to a scheme in which he allegedly siphoned $1.2 million from a nonprofit organization that funded Afghan community programs. The indictment, linked in the article, includes details of how Mamdani allegedly used multiple shell companies and forged documents to move the money into his personal accounts.

Legal Pathways to Denaturalization

The Fox News piece also included a link to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) briefing on the legal mechanics of denaturalization. Under INA § 340, the government can pursue removal of citizenship if it can prove that the individual obtained natural status by fraud or that they concealed material facts. The process requires a court hearing and, if the removal is granted, a subsequent removal order from ICE.

The article quotes a legal scholar from Stanford Law School who notes that denaturalization is rare and has only been pursued in extreme cases involving espionage or terrorism. “The government would need compelling evidence that Mamdani deliberately misrepresented his status or engaged in activities that would have made him inadmissible,” the scholar said. “Given the high stakes, the House motion signals a serious shift in how naturalized citizens with serious criminal allegations are treated.”

House Oversight and Congressional Response

A link to the House Oversight Committee’s docket shows that a hearing is slated for early December to review Mamdani’s case. The committee will hear from immigration officials, legal experts, and former Afghan law enforcement officials who can attest to Mamdani’s conduct in Afghanistan. Rep. Hobbins stated that the committee should hold a public hearing “to ensure transparency and accountability.”

Other Republicans have weighed in. Rep. Mike Johnson (R‑LA) called the motion “an overdue response to a man who has repeatedly betrayed the public trust.” Meanwhile, Democrats on the committee have expressed concerns about due process. “We must ensure that any action against Mr. Mamdani follows the rule of law,” said Rep. Maria Elías (D‑CA). “We cannot rush to judgment.”

Implications for U.S. Immigration and National Security

The call for denaturalization and deportation of Mamdani signals a potentially new precedent for dealing with naturalized citizens who have serious foreign or domestic criminal histories. The House motion is being framed not only as a reaction to a specific individual’s alleged misconduct but also as a broader message about the integrity of the naturalization process. It highlights the challenges of vetting foreign nationals, especially those who served in foreign security forces during periods of conflict.

If the DOJ moves forward with the denaturalization, it would mark one of the first high‑profile cases in which a naturalized citizen was stripped of citizenship following allegations of criminal conduct. Whether the request will pass through the immigration courts, or whether the matter will ultimately be decided in the House Oversight Committee, remains to be seen. However, the debate is already raising questions about how the United States balances national security concerns with the rights of naturalized citizens and the legal safeguards that protect due process.

The situation also illustrates the intricate interplay between immigration policy and congressional oversight. As lawmakers weigh the merits of this particular case, the implications could reverberate through future immigration decisions and the broader conversation about the integrity of the U.S. naturalization system.