Any fraud conviction now strips citizenship from naturalized Americans
H.R. 6975 — Fraud Accountability Act · Filed by Buddy Carter (R-GA) · 3 cosponsors · Introduced Jan 8, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill makes fraud a deportable offense for non-citizens and allows any U.S. court that convicts a naturalized citizen of fraud to automatically revoke their citizenship and cancel their naturalization certificate. It removes the financial-loss threshold that currently limits fraud deportations, making even small-scale fraud grounds for removal, and applies retroactively to fraud committed since 1996 that has not yet been prosecuted.
Why we flagged it
The bill expands grounds for deportation and denaturalization by lowering the fraud threshold and centralizing denaturalization authority in any trial court, shifting enforcement power away from specialized immigration proceedings toward general criminal courts.
What the text implies
- Any trial court (state or federal, civil or criminal) gains automatic denaturalization power upon fraud conviction—no separate immigration proceeding required, potentially bypassing due-process safeguards built into INA § 340.
- Retroactive application to conduct since 1996 means naturalized citizens face denaturalization for decades-old fraud never previously prosecuted, creating a moving target for citizenship revocation.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The bill strengthens deportation and denaturalization tools for fraud, which may deter fraud and protect public resources—a legitimate public interest. However, it grants extraordinary power to any trial court (not just immigration courts) to strip citizenship without a separate denaturalization proceeding, eliminates the fraud-loss threshold (making minor fraud grounds for deportation), and applies retroactively to conduct decades old, creating severe due-process and proportionality concerns fo