Trump Says Rosie O’Donnell Should Stay in Ireland \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ President Donald Trump suggested revoking U.S. citizenship from comedian Rosie O’Donnell, a native-born citizen, prompting legal backlash. O’Donnell, a longtime critic of Trump, recently relocated to Ireland but retains her U.S. citizenship. Experts note the Constitution forbids the government from stripping citizenship of native-born Americans.
Quick Looks
- Trump’s Claim: Considering revoking Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship
- Platform: Trump posted the statement on social media Saturday
- Legal Block: 1967 Supreme Court ruling prohibits such action
- O’Donnell’s Status: U.S.-born, constitutionally protected citizenship
- Move to Ireland: Relocated in January; pursuing Irish citizenship
- Political Criticism: O’Donnell denounced Trump’s recent policies
- Broader Trend: Trump has made similar threats, including to Elon Musk
- Legal Expert: Amanda Frost confirms presidents lack such authority
Deep Look
President Donald Trump, now in his second term after defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, reignited his longstanding feud with comedian and actress Rosie O’Donnell by publicly suggesting that her U.S. citizenship should be revoked—a move that has drawn swift criticism from legal experts, civil rights advocates, and constitutional scholars.
“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,” Trump posted on social media over the weekend.
The remark came just months after O’Donnell relocated to Ireland, following Trump’s reelection victory. She has since announced plans to pursue Irish citizenship by descent, citing her family heritage. In his post, Trump also suggested Ireland should “keep her, if they want her.”
While Trump has used incendiary language to target critics throughout both of his terms in office, this latest threat stands out as a direct challenge to a constitutional right that is among the most protected in American law. And it appears to be without precedent: never in modern U.S. history has a sitting president publicly floated the idea of revoking a native-born citizen’s nationality as retaliation for political opposition.
Legal Experts: The Constitution Is Clear
Constitutional scholars were quick to respond, underscoring the illegality and impossibility of Trump’s suggestion. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, and the Supreme Court has ruled that such citizenship cannot be stripped by the government.
“The president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born U.S. citizen,” said Amanda Frost, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. “This principle was affirmed in the 1967 Supreme Court case Afroyim v. Rusk. The Constitution does not allow the government to decide who belongs—it is the people who choose the government, not the other way around.”
The U.S. State Department reinforces this position on its official website, noting that citizenship can only be voluntarily relinquished, typically through formal renunciation processes conducted abroad. O’Donnell has not taken any such steps and retains full U.S. citizenship rights.
Trump’s comments are not only unenforceable under law, but they also represent what many view as a dangerous overreach of executive rhetoric—one that blurs the line between political discourse and authoritarian impulse.
Political Retaliation or Distraction?
The escalation came days after O’Donnell publicly criticized the Trump administration, including its approval of a controversial GOP-led tax package that slashed federal programs while benefiting large corporations. O’Donnell has long used her platform to voice strong opposition to Trump, dating back to the early 2000s. Their feud—often marked by personal insults and jabs—has persisted through two presidential terms.
In her response posted online Saturday, O’Donnell mocked the president’s frustration:
“I’ve clearly upset him. Add me to the list of people who oppose him at every turn,” she wrote.
Trump has previously threatened to revoke the citizenship of individuals he has politically clashed with, including tech billionaire Elon Musk, whose U.S. citizenship was acquired through naturalization. However, O’Donnell’s case is fundamentally different. She was born in the United States, making her citizenship constitutionally guaranteed and not revocable by presidential decree.
Civil Liberties at Risk?
Critics argue that Trump’s threat—though legally baseless—signals a worrying trend toward using citizenship as a weapon against dissent. While the power to issue executive orders and influence immigration is firmly within a president’s domain, attempting to rewrite the rules of birthright citizenship moves into territory associated more with autocratic regimes than democratic governance.
Several civil rights groups condemned the remarks, warning that such rhetoric undermines the fundamental rights of all Americans, particularly those who challenge the administration.
“This is not just about Rosie O’Donnell,” said one representative from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “It’s about whether U.S. citizens can feel secure that their rights won’t be threatened by political retaliation.”
Even among conservative legal scholars, there was agreement: the Constitution does not grant any president the authority to remove someone’s citizenship based on their views or public criticism.
Looking Ahead
President Trump’s second term has been marked by an intensified focus on loyalty, immigration reform, and opposition suppression. As the political climate heats up once again heading toward the 2026 midterm elections, observers are keeping a close eye on how far the administration may go in targeting opponents—particularly those in the public eye.
While Rosie O’Donnell may have physically left the country, her influence, voice, and citizenship remain firmly tied to the United States. And in the eyes of constitutional law, that bond cannot be broken by a president’s post—no matter how strongly worded it may be.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.