The Case to Revoke Mamdani’s Citizenship: Misrepresentation, Subversion, Wire Fraud, and the Higher Standard for Naturalized Americans

I went through the U.S. naturalization process, just like Zohran Kwame Mamdani. Here’s the case for revoking his citizenship based on facts only.

Wait in lines, answered questions under pressure, and lived with uncertainty, all leading to the day I took the same oath Mamdani did.

The oath is not symbolic. It is a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury.

To make that pledge falsely, is to commit an act of fraud against the United States.

That’s exactly what Mamdani has done.

Background

Zohran Kwame Mamdani, born in Kampala, Uganda, in 1991, immigrated to New York City at age seven. He attended Bronx Science, earned a BA from Bowdoin College, and became politically active—founding a Students for Justice in Palestine chapter and embracing hard-left, anti-market economic ideologies.

In 2018, Mamdani was naturalized as a U.S. citizen after completing the legal requirements under 8 U.S.C. § 1423, including:

• Passing the civics examination, which tests knowledge of the Constitution, government structure, and American values;

• Demonstrating English proficiency;

• Taking the legally binding Oath of Allegiance before a U.S. official under 8 U.S.C. § 1448(a).

That oath reads in full:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

The obligations of the Oath of Allegiance are clearly explained to applicants. Factual understanding of the U.S. Constitution, the limits of government authority, private property rights, and the structure of lawful governance is established as a condition for citizenship approval.

Which is why Mamdani’s subsequent actions reveal what can only be described as fraud at the moment of naturalization. His conduct shows his oath was knowingly false—a lie told to U.S. officials to secure citizenship under false pretenses.

Naturalized vs. Natural-Born Citizens: Legal Distinction

The U.S. legal framework distinguishes between:

• Natural-born citizens, who acquire citizenship at birth and whose citizenship is generally considered irrevocable except through voluntary renunciation;

• Naturalized citizens, who obtain citizenship after meeting legal requirements, with conditions including lawful procurement, truthful disclosures, and demonstrated attachment to constitutional principles.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), a naturalized citizen may have their citizenship revoked if:

• It was obtained through fraud, concealment of material facts, or willful misrepresentation;

• Subsequent actions demonstrate a fundamental lack of attachment to the Constitution.

The standard for denaturalization is high, requiring clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, but the legal pathway is well-established.

Mamdani’s Public Platform and Relevant Legal Concerns

Mamdani has pursued policies that raise legal questions concerning his compliance with the requirements of lawful naturalization, including:

1. State-Run Grocery Stores
   Mamdani has advocated for the use of public funds to operate government-owned grocery stores intended to compete with private businesses. Historical analysis shows that similar structures have been used in state-controlled economies, raising concerns about interference with lawful private market functions.

2. Permanent Rent Freezes
   His proposals to freeze rent indefinitely implicate private property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment, specifically regarding the Takings Clause and lawful compensation standards.

3. Defunding Law Enforcement
   Mamdani has promoted significant reductions to police funding without clear legal mechanisms to maintain public safety, which may conflict with state obligations to protect citizens.

4. Campaign Promises Exceeding Legal Authority
   Various statements made by Mamdani indicate promises that exceed state-level constitutional authority, potentially misleading voters regarding the feasibility of proposed policies.

Given Mamdani’s educational background and successful completion of the naturalization civics examination, it is reasonable to conclude that he possesses sufficient understanding of constitutional governance and related limitations.

Legal Grounds for Citizenship Revocation

According to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), the U.S. government may initiate denaturalization proceedings if:

• The citizenship was procured illegally;

• There was concealment of material facts;

• There were willful misrepresentations regarding allegiance to the Constitution;

• Actions after naturalization reveal a lack of attachment to constitutional principles.

Misrepresenting intent during the Oath of Allegiance constitutes grounds for denaturalization. A pattern of promoting policies designed to circumvent constitutional protections, combined with the knowledge demonstrated by passing the naturalization process, supports a legal argument that the oath was not made in good faith.

Legal Precedent

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld strict evidentiary standards for denaturalization but recognizes its legitimacy when fraud, misrepresentation, or disloyalty are proven. Precedents such as Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981), emphasize that failure to meet the good-faith requirements of naturalization nullifies the validity of citizenship.

Application to Mamdani’s Case

Let’s be clear—Mamdani’s platform is not just radical politics. It is deliberate deception:

• State-Run Grocery Stores: Taxpayer-funded enterprises designed to undercut private businesses, copying Marxist, state-controlled market models.

• Permanent Rent Freezes: Violations of constitutional protections under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

  

• Defunding Police: Undermining public safety with no lawful alternatives.

• Impossible Promises: Overstating state authority and deceiving voters into supporting unconstitutional policies. Any donations his campaign collected constitute wire fraud as per 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

  The federal Wire Fraud statute states:

  “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits…by means of wire, radio, or television communication… shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.”
  (18 U.S.C. § 1343)

Given his education and his civics test passage, Mamdani cannot claim ignorance. His actions demonstrate:

✔ Full knowledge of constitutional boundaries;

✔ A false oath of allegiance;

✔ Fraudulent procurement of citizenship;

✔ Ongoing subversion of constitutional governance.

This combination of factors presents a legally arguable basis for initiating proceedings to revoke Mamdani’s citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), contingent upon further investigation and legal review.

🌐Final Considerations: Foreign Influence, National Vulnerability, and Legal Precedent

The United States has historically extended extraordinary trust, grace, and legal benefits to immigrants who seek freedom from oppressive state systems. The naturalization process is rooted in the expectation of good faith, with the assumption that those granted citizenship share allegiance to constitutional governance, respect for private property, and individual liberties.

However, the U.S. system’s reliance on good-faith declarations creates inherent vulnerabilities—especially when individuals obtain citizenship under false pretenses and subsequently pursue policies aligned with hostile state ideologies. This risk is compounded by known examples of foreign influence operations, such as the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) global efforts to exploit democratic systems, infiltrate institutions, and promote governance models that undermine free markets and constitutional protections.

Failing to enforce existing denaturalization laws in cases like Mamdani’s not only weakens legal integrity but establishes a dangerous precedent. Allowing individuals with demonstrable anti-constitutional agendas to retain citizenship—and even occupy public office—heightens national exposure to:

• Economic sabotage, through state-controlled market proposals that erode private enterprise;

• Erosion of property rights, undermining the foundation of individual liberty;

• Subversion of lawful governance, misusing political platforms to promote policies exceeding constitutional limits;

• Expanded susceptibility to foreign espionage, ideological infiltration, and potential treasonous conduct, particularly when aligned with authoritarian state interests.

The legal framework under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) exists to protect national sovereignty by addressing fraud, disloyalty, and subversion in the naturalization process. Enforcing these provisions is not optional; it is an essential safeguard against internal threats that leverage the privileges of U.S. citizenship to weaken the nation from within.

Setting clear, consistent legal standards in cases like Mamdani’s is critical to maintaining the integrity of public office, protecting constitutional rights, and reducing national vulnerability to foreign-influenced destabilization efforts.

The rule of law requires equal accountability for all citizens—and demands vigilance when those entrusted with American citizenship betray the very system that granted them refuge and opportunity.