Facebook Twitter (X) Instagram Somali Magazine - People's Magazine
Donald Trump on Tuesday said he would pursue efforts to revoke the U.S. citizenship of some naturalized Americans who are convicted of fraud, as part of a broader push to tighten immigration enforcement. Speaking at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump outlined what he described as a tougher approach to crime and misuse of public resources, singling out immigrants “from Somalia or anywhere else” while discussing his plans.
In his remarks, Trump said his administration would seek denaturalization and deportation proceedings against immigrants who were found guilty of defrauding U.S. citizens or the government. He framed the proposal as a way to protect Americans and hold people accountable if they broke the law after gaining citizenship. “If you come to America to rob Americans, we’re throwing you in jail, and we’re sending you back to the place from where you came,” he said, drawing applause from the audience.
Trump’s comments came amid heightened rhetoric from his administration about alleged fraud in publicly funded programs, particularly those supporting child care and nutrition. He pointed to Minnesota as an example, a state that is home to the largest Somali-American population in the United States. The Twin Cities area, in particular, has become a major center for Somali-American communities over the past several decades, with many families relying on social services while working to establish stable lives.
Federal and state authorities are currently investigating claims that some child care and meal subsidy programs in Minnesota and other states were misused. These investigations are still ongoing, and officials have not yet released final conclusions or a full accounting of any confirmed wrongdoing. Despite the lack of completed findings, the issue has become a focal point in political debates about immigration, public spending, and oversight of social programs.
Even as investigations continue, the administration moved to halt certain federal child care payments to five states led by Democratic governors. The affected states include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. State leaders argued that the funding cuts would hurt families who rely on child care assistance and that the move was not supported by existing law.
In response, the five states filed a lawsuit challenging the decision. They argued that the federal government did not have the authority to block the funds and that the action violated federal statutes governing how child care assistance is distributed. The legal challenge quickly moved through the courts, reflecting the urgency of the funding issue for families and providers.
Last week, a federal judge ordered a temporary pause on the administration’s action, allowing the child care payments to continue while the case is reviewed. The judge’s decision does not resolve the broader dispute but prevents immediate disruptions as the legal process moves forward.
Trump has frequently cited what he describes as widespread fraud in government programs and rising crime linked to immigration as reasons for stricter enforcement policies. He has argued that tougher measures are necessary to protect taxpayers and maintain trust in public institutions. His critics, however, say these claims often rely on exaggerated or unproven allegations and risk unfairly targeting entire communities based on isolated cases.
Experts and researchers have repeatedly pushed back against the idea that immigrants are more prone to crime. Studies from academic institutions and government agencies have consistently found that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, are less likely to commit violent crimes than people born in the United States. Critics argue that focusing on specific ethnic or national groups fuels fear and division rather than addressing policy problems in a balanced way.
As the investigations and court cases continue, Trump’s remarks have reignited debate over immigration, citizenship, and how the government should respond to alleged fraud. Supporters see his stance as a firm defense of the law, while opponents warn it could undermine trust, stigmatize immigrant communities, and blur the line between accountability and collective blame.