Ian Alexander has allegedly been suspended from Twitch after being on the receiving end of racism and transphobia from viewers.

The actor, who most recently appeared in Star Trek: Discovery and picked up a bit of a gamer following after voicing Lev in The Last of Us: Part II, said that they were in the middle of streaming when some trolls started causing trouble.

"I was receiving racist and transphobic troll comments where they were saying slurs," he wrote on Wednesday. "I censored them, told the trolls to touch some grass, and then my account got suspended mid-stream. I appealed the suspension, idk when I'll get my channel back."

The screenshot appears to show that Alexander was indefinitely suspended for "violent hate speech" — which makes very little sense according to their account of how this all went down.

One viewer who claimed to have been watching the stream when Alexander's account got banned seemed to back his version of events up.

Several others suggested that this was likely the result of a targeted raid against them because of their identity, with one claiming that groups specifically targeting LGBTQ+ streamers "make comments that violate TOS and somehow Twitch sees that and suspends the streamer instead of the trolls."

Social media platforms have received a lot of criticism over the years for failing to adequately protect members of the LGBTQ+ community and other vulnerable groups, or even disproportionately allowing their accounts to be penalized.

Twitch in particular claimed to have been working against these sort of targeted attacks back in March, saying that they "continue to take these activities seriously."

RELATED | Drag Race Philippines Makes Herstory With Two Trans Judges

President Donald Trump asked Americans on Thursday if they remembered a massive television outage two years ago.

That outage didn't happen. As he has before, the president who is fond of telling imaginary tales was explicitly asking people to recall something he had made up.

This time, Trump's fictional story was about wind energy. He has for years railed against it, tried to thwart it and made false claims about it – including a phony anecdote about how, in places where wind power is used, people can't turn on their TVs when the wind isn't blowing.

That isn't true; wind is used as part of a mix of electricity sources, not as the only source, so the grid keeps running and TVs stay on even when there is no breeze. (Also, there are batteries that can store energy from wind turbines for deployment during low-wind periods.) But Trump has often delivered the no-TV story with a comedic touch that has allowed it to skirt fact checks.

In his Thursday remarks at the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, he told it mostly as if it were a real reminiscence.

He denounced "the Green New Scam, where we were scammed." Then he said: "The whole country was – I wasn't scammed. I got it right from the beginning; I got it from the first minute when I heard this crap. You know? They were saying wind was so wonderful, so wonderful, except you couldn't watch your television. They wanted to watch the debate, Donald Trump against Sleepy Joe Biden. Nobody could watch it because the wind wasn't blowing. Remember that? 'Darling, we'd like to watch the debate tonight.' 'I'm sorry, the wind isn't blowing.'"

Uh, no.

Tens of millions of Americans watched his June 2024 debate with then-President Joe Biden – more than 51 million on television alone, according to Nielsen estimates. The viewers, of course, included people in the state that produced by far the most wind-powered electricity in 2024 and still produces by far the most today…Republican-dominated Texas, which is also the most populous state Trump won.

Biden did promote the adoption of renewable energy during his presidency, and he set a goal of the US having 100% "clean electricity" by 2035. But Congress never passed and Biden never signed the Green New Deal, a nonbinding congressional resolution proposed by progressive Democrats that said the country should embark on a 10-year push to meet all of its power demand through "clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy." Wind was responsible for about 10% of US net electricity generation in 2024, according to federal data.

Trump told other false tales, too

Trump's wind story wasn't the only fictional tale he told at the Thursday event. He also claimed California has "brownouts and blackouts every weekend," which is simply not true; he has been making similar false claims about California for years.

A spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a Friday email that "there hasn't been a rolling blackout in nearly six years in California" and that "California's grid hasn't had to call for any emergency conservation through the Flex Alert program since 2022, which is proof that the state's investment in clean energy and battery storage is paying off."

And Trump lamented, twice, that he gets "no credit" for the US having received "$19.2 trillion" in investment in just his first 12 months back in office. He doesn't get such credit because the US hasn't actually received anywhere close to $19.2 trillion in investment during this presidential term, let alone take in that much during the first year of the term; as we've repeatedly explained, Trump's figure is a fabrication even the White House can't substantiate.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

America's oil stockpile is shrinking fast.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is currently at about 311.4 million barrels, a level it hasn't seen since 1983. That's an over 100 million barrel decline from March when the EIA recorded roughly 415 million barrels.

The most immediate reason for this drop was President Donald Trump's decision to release 172 million barrels to stabilize energy prices as the Iran war continues.

Must Read

• Jeff Bezos backs a platform that lets anyone invest in rental homes for as little as $100 — 6 ways to build wealth like a landlord without actually being one

• Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — here's what it is and 3 simple steps to fix it ASAP

• Millionaires under 43 hold only 25% of their wealth in stocks. Here's where their money is actually going

But some argue Congress is more to blame for putting the SPR in such a weakened state.

In the not-too-distant past, there was a moment when Congress could have bought millions of barrels at bargain prices — and President Trump wanted to do just that.

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump ordered the Department of Energy (DOE) to capitalize on low oil prices and shore up the SPR with 77 million barrels. At that time, the price of oil was trading between $20 and $30 a barrel, which makes the proposed $3 billion purchase a steal compared with today's prices in the $90-$100 range.

In hindsight, this decision looks like a no-brainer. But not all lawmakers — particularly Democrats — saw it that way. For instance, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was openly opposed to the $3 billion purchase, calling it a "bailout for big oil," according to CNBC.

More in Business

12 Most Beautiful Places to Live in the U.S. If You Love the Outdoors, According to Real Estate Experts

Travel+Leisure

I've interviewed dozens of FIRE investors who focus on earning more, and learned the easiest side hustle is often the most time-consuming

Business Insider

An 11-year-old is cleaning his neighbors’ trash cans for $10 each—he now has 100K followers as teens face the worst summer job market since 1948

Fortune

426

この無料PC RPGは今年最高の話題作です日々のヒーロー ·

AdAd

Without enough bipartisan support for the $3 billion purchase, the DOE didn't follow through on Trump's directive when the COVID-19 relief package passed. If they did, America would have closer to 388 million barrels at this time.

MoneyWise reached out to Sen. Chuck Schumer for comment, but we didn't hear back by the time of publication.

Does Biden bear some of the blame?

Even though there was a big drop in the SPR this year, it had a much steeper decline between 2021 and 2023. At the start of 2021, there were about 638 million barrels in the SPR, but that kept falling to a local low of about 350 million barrels in the middle of 2023.

Former President Joe Biden authorized selling up to 260 million barrels during this period for a similar purpose: to keep gas prices low during a time of geopolitical tension (this time, Russia's invasion of Ukraine).

Interestingly, headlines from that period pointed out how the SPR was at 1980s levels. Politico reported on Republicans who harshly criticized Biden's move, such as former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who said, "Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is down to nothing."

To be fair, when President Biden left office, he brought the total reserve back up a bit thanks to the purchase of 59 million barrels.

Read More: Vanguard reveals what's coming for U.S. stocks — and it could be bad news for this group of investors

Is the SPR enough to slash oil prices?

Although the SPR seems like a rational idea to preserve energy independence, there's a long-standing debate over whether it's little more than a political prop.

For instance, back in 2015, The Heritage Foundation made the case that the SPR was "unnecessary," arguing "American presidents…have used the reserve more effectively for party politics than as an efficient response to global supply shocks."

Authors at this conservative think tank suggested, "private inventories and reserves are abundant, and open markets will respond more efficiently to supply shocks than federally controlled government stockpiles."​

In 2022, the U.S. Department of the Treasury looked more closely into just how much the SPR releases impact gas prices. Interestingly, they found that President Biden's release of millions of barrels "lowered the price of gasoline by 17 cents to 42 cents per gallon."​

Even though SPR releases seem to have an impact, don't get your hopes up for a big decrease at the pump. The SPR is the most direct lever presidents have at their disposal, but it doesn't do away with the complex geopolitical issues influencing crude oil's price.

Plus, in a true doomsday scenario, America would probably burn through this reserve in about a month. At its maximum, the SPR can hold ​​727 million barrels, and the EIA estimates the U.S. uses 20 million barrels of petroleum every day. So, if America had 727 million on tap, that's roughly enough to survive for about 36 days.

Of course, it's better to have that cushion than not, but it shows that the SPR's biggest benefit is that it can buy America a bit of time.

What To Read Next

• Here are the 7 top habits of 'quietly wealthy' Americans. How many do you follow?

• The tax breaks in Trump's 'big beautiful bill' expire after 2028 — and experts say most people won't act in time. What to do before the window closes

• Here's the average income of Americans by age in 2026. Are you keeping up or falling behind?

• When he dies, Warren Buffett said 90% of his wife's inheritance will go into a single investment. Here's why (and how you can do it too)

Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise's best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.

This article originally appeared on Moneywise.com under the title: Democrats killed Trump's $3B plan to buy oil at $20 a barrel — now the reserve has dropped to 311M barrels, a 1983 low

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

A former Indianapolis Colts linebacker from Kenya was deported by ICE last month, the agency said in a statement Saturday, citing an overstayed visa and a history of arrests.

Daniel Ogama Adongo, 37, was removed from the country on June 20 after ICE said he overstayed a visa in 2016, the year after his NFL career ended. An immigration judge had ordered his removal in late March.

Attorneys who previously represented Adongo did not immediately respond to requests for comment. NBC News was unable to contact Adongo or determine his current legal representatives for comment.

Adongo, a former rugby player, became the first Kenyan to play in the NFL after the Colts signed him in 2013.

The Indianapolis Star reported that court records showed Adongo had run-ins with the law during and after his time with the Colts and was at times found incompetent to stand trial. His attorney and others have raised the possibility that he sustained a traumatic brain injury during his football and rugby careers.

ICE said Adongo was convicted of criminal mischief with damage, a misdemeanor, in 2020 and sentenced to 364 days in jail; court records show that, with credit for time served, he was ultimately ordered to serve six months in county jail. The agency said he also faced charges — including felony intimidation, battery and disorderly conduct — that did not result in conviction. Court records show those charges were all dismissed.

ICE said Adongo's most recent charges fell under the Laken Riley Act, which requires the agency to detain undocumented immigrants who are arrested on suspicion of, charged with or convicted of "burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting." Critics of the law have said it strips away due process for immigrants accused — but not convicted of — certain crimes. ICE did not specify which charges fell under the act.

"This dangerous individual was clearly a threat to the community, which is now safer since he's been removed," ICE Chicago Assistant Field Office Director Douglas Thompson said in the statement. "Those who violate immigration law are held equally accountable, including former professional athletes."

Adongo's lawyers had previously attributed his arrests to mental illness, according to the Indianapolis Star. His defense attorney cited a 2020 report in which a doctor who examined Adongo at the St. Joseph Regional Medical Center described him as "acutely psychotic with traumatic brain injury."

A mental health social worker who treated Adongo for years wrote that he suffered from an "undisclosed mental illness which is highly speculated to be Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, or CTE," the Star reported.

CTE is a brain condition caused by repeated head injuries, typically sustained over many years. It cannot be diagnosed in a living patient — only through an autopsy. About one-third of former NFL players suspect they have the disease, according to a 2024 survey. The NFL first acknowledged the link between CTE and football in 2016.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the questions Adongo's family and attorneys have raised about his mental state and possible brain injury.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

"For 250 years, America has stood as a Nation that believes in the potential of its people," the Trump administration said in a statement a few months back. "Upon returning to office, for the first time ever, I appointed a White House Pardon Czar to lead our clemency efforts with a clear focus on both opportunity and accountability….The story of America is filled with individuals who have demonstrated real change in their hearts and earned a second chance."

Many people will not be so lucky. President Donald Trump this month denied about 6,000 clemency applications after White House staff had recently floated granting 250 pardons to celebrate America's semiquincentennial.

That plan did not come to be. It is not uncommon for presidents to be shy about using the pardon power. But Trump's playbook for clemency isn't notable so much for its bashfulness as it is for its process, or lack thereof.

The president began his term issuing about 1,600 clemency grants to those involved in the January 6 riot, some of whom were convicted of violent offenses. That corrected "a grave national injustice," he said, which could begin "a process of national reconciliation." It is difficult to argue Trump did that, however, when considering he issued blanket grants instead of evaluating individual cases to determine specific prosecutorial excesses on the merits.

"As of November 6, the Justice Department reported, about 600 people had been charged with 'assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement agents or officers or obstructing those officers' during the riot," Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote last year. "They included 169 defendants 'charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.'…Trump's avowed support for law enforcement and opposition to violence are hard to discern in his blanket clemency, which encompasses defendants who flouted both principles."

The president, meanwhile, has become famous for extending mercy to people with political and financial connections. When Trump pardoned Scott Jenkins—a disgraced former sheriff convicted of cartoonish levels of corruption—U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin did not beat around the bush about why. "No MAGA left behind," he posted on X. "Thank you, @potus Trump, for pardoning Sheriff Jenkins!"

This appears to be a feature, not a bug. "Perhaps the most important part of the pardon playbook is finding a way to get Trump's attention," Gabe Kaminsky wrote for The Free Press in December. "That strategy was successful for [Juan Orlando] Hernández, the former Honduras president who was convicted last year of conspiring with drug traffickers to import over 400 tons of cocaine to the United States." Trump freed him from his 45-year prison sentence after a letter from Hernández, who addressed the president as "Your Excellency," made its way to Trump via adviser Roger Stone. The next month, the administration would go on to arrest Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro on similar charges.

That's not to say Trump hasn't given out good grants. The pardon czar he invoked in his April statement is Alice Marie Johnson, whose draconian life sentence for nonviolent drug offenses was commuted by Trump during his first term before he issued her a full pardon. One wonders if there was another Johnson sitting in his recent stack of 6,000.

The post Trump Says He Believes in Giving People a 'Second Chance.' For 6,000 People, the Answer Was No. appeared first on Reason.com.

Revoking an immigrant's citizenship has proven to be a costly and controversial practice over the years, but the Trump administration says hundreds of people deserve to have their citizenship stripped anyway.

The plan calls for ramping up the previously rare denaturalization process as a part of a broader immigration enforcement agenda, expanding a practice President Donald Trump started in his first term.

So far, the Justice Department has moved to revoke the citizenship of nearly 90 people since the start of 2025. By October, the government is aiming to file at least 250 denaturalization cases in federal court.

Under federal law, the government can ask a judge to revoke the citizenship of someone who obtained it through fraud or misrepresentation – such as using a false identity or concealing a disqualifying criminal record during the naturalization process.

At its current rate, the administration is on pace to pursue more denaturalization cases than any other in recent modern American history. By comparison, the Biden administration brought 24 cases over four years, while the government filed 102 denaturalization cases during Trump's first term, according to the DOJ.

"This is a major increase that we haven't seen in decades," said Cassandra Robertson, a professor of law at Case Western Reserve University and an expert on denaturalization.

The Trump administration says it is targeting criminals and fraudsters who should not have become citizens in the first place, and framed the campaign as an effort to preserve the integrity of the naturalization process.

"When you commit fraud during the naturalization process, you forfeit the right to keep your U.S. citizenship," Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a recent statement. "DHS is committed to ensuring we denaturalize and remove these fraudsters with every tool at our disposal."

For decades, the government only pursued a handful of denaturalization cases each year, in part because they require significant resources, are expensive and can take years to resolve. The cases prosecutors did pursue largely targeted national security threats, affiliates of terror groups and suspected war criminals.

But since Trump returned to office, his administration has moved to expand the use of denaturalization. The DOJ's civil division has been ordered to prioritize denaturalization, and agency leaders have enlisted the help of U.S. attorney's offices nationwide to boost case numbers. In a post on X on July 20, the White House described the campaign as the "Largest Denaturalization Effort Ever."

Former DOJ attorneys and immigration law experts said the cases being pursued under Trump largely don't appear out of step with previous administrations. But they expressed concerns that the effort could divert resources from other priorities like prosecuting fraud or corruption cases. Some blasted the effort as a tactic meant to intimidate the country's more than 26 million naturalized citizens.

"I don't think this will make any dent in the administration's deportation goals," said Stacey Young, a former DOJ lawyer, describing the denaturalization process as slow-moving and, to a certain degree, unscalable. "I think it does send a message that naturalized citizenship is impermanent and precarious."

New administration, new denaturalization push

President Trump addresses the nation in a primetime broadcast

1 of 5

President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on July 16, 2026.

(Pool photo by Saul Loeb ,AFP via Getty Images)More

Within a week of taking office in 2025, Trump ordered "adequate resources" be dedicated to denaturalizing some U.S. citizens as part of his broader immigration strategy.

More in Politics

I’ve been teaching college students for decades. Most of them can no longer finish a book

Fortune

973

Waltz blames Biden for depleted stockpiles, but says US military has ‘everything that it needs’

The Hill

780

Ukraine's Magura drone heads to America after sinking warships

TechRadar

稲盛氏に論破・叱責され目が覚めた。経営者がバランスすべき2つの背反ビズヒント ·

AdAd

Months later, the DOJ issued a memo directing the agency's civil division, which primarily handles denaturalization cases, to "prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings."

As of July 22, the Justice Department has filed at least 89 denaturalization cases in federal court, according to a DOJ official – nearly four times as many as were pursued during former President Joe Biden's term in office.

Of the cases filed under Trump, the government has won at least 19, the DOJ official said. And while most cases were handled by the DOJ's civil division, a significant portion have been taken up by U.S. attorney's offices across the country – a shift in procedure that experts say highlights how the government is diverting resources to try to strip more people of their U.S. citizenship than ever before.

"Occasionally the civil division would partner with U.S. attorneys' offices, but that was rare," said Young, who worked in the DOJ's civil division from 2006 to 2019 under the Bush, Obama and first Trump administrations. "I don't remember any cases being handled exclusively by U.S. attorneys' offices."

Many of the pending cases involve allegations that the defendant lied or omitted details about their previous conduct that would have made them ineligible for U.S. citizenship.

In most cases, the Justice Department cited criminal convictions on serious charges such as sexual abuse, wire fraud and drug distribution. Others involve allegations that the defendant used a fake name during the naturalization process. In multiple cases, the government accused defendants of participating in war crimes or supporting foreign terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab.

Immigration experts and former DOJ lawyers said the government's allegations so far don't appear out of the ordinary but noted the surge in cases overall – the result of more resources being dedicated to pursuing denaturalization.

"On first blush, these cases don't look all that different from cases that have been brought by previous administrations," said Daniel Kanstroom, a law professor at Boston College who specializes in immigration.

He added that the DOJ appears to be targeting people who pleaded guilty to crimes committed before or during the naturalization process. This group, according to the government, should have been denied citizenship in the first place as they did not meet the "good moral character" requirement.

A big shift

Between 1990 and 2017, an average of 11 denaturalization cases were filed per year, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The low number can largely be traced back to a 1967 ruling by the Supreme Court that says the government can only revoke citizenship in the case of fraud or "willful misrepresentation."

That decision followed a Cold War effort to denaturalize those who the government perceived as political enemies, including labor leaders, journalists or critics of the government accused of being communists, said Amanda Frost, a University of Virginia law professor and immigration attorney. Through the two world wars and into the 1950s, some 22,000 immigrants saw their U.S. citizenship revoked, Frost said.

In the decades that followed, the government limited its prosecutions, focusing mainly on national security threats or people with ties to foreign terrorist groups.

"Republican and Democratic administrations post the Supreme Court decision understood the message of that case and understood that denaturalization was to be used sparingly and was not supposed to be a bread-and-butter tool of immigration enforcement," Frost said.

Denaturalization cases did tick up under former President Barack Obama. At the time, new digital fingerprinting technology revealed that hundreds of people who had previously been ordered deported successfully naturalized using different identities. The Obama administration began a review aiming to denaturalize any citizen with ties to foreign terrorist organizations.

When Trump took office in 2016, his administration widened the program and broadened the scope of cases to include non-terror crimes such as fraud and violent offenses. The administration also set quotas. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered the investigation of 700,000 naturalized citizens, with a goal of bringing some 1,600 cases to court.

While those goals weren't ultimately met, the number of denaturalization cases brought by the DOJ jumped to an estimated 168 over four years, far outpacing the Obama and Bush administrations.

Denaturalization cases are long, costly and difficult to win

Among the reasons only a handful of denaturalization cases were pursued in previous decades is that they can take years to resolve and demand significant resources.

"It's a cumbersome process," said Young, the former litigator and founder of Justice Connection. "There's tons of evidence, intensive discovery and cases often go to trial or go up on appeal."

The Trump administration's denaturalization push comes as the Justice Department grapples with an exodus of government lawyers and a historic caseload stemming from legal challenges to the White House's deportation campaign.

"They're overwhelmed," Young said of federal attorneys nationwide, adding that the denaturalization push could pull prosecutors away from critical work, such as litigating cases involving health care fraud, environmental crimes, corruption or national security violations.

And even when a judge sides with the government, that doesn't always lead to deportation. Instead, defendants revert to their previous status, which is often a lawful permanent resident with the right to due process and a hearing before an immigration judge.

"To remove them you have to go through a whole separate process," Young said.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration is set on pursuing as many cases as possible. Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said on July 20 that the federal government has "only scratched the surface" and promised "many more complaints are coming."

"We refuse to give a free pass to criminals who cheated their way into American citizenship," Shumate said. "Under this administration, if you defrauded the naturalization process, you will face the full force of the Justice Department."

Trump, GOP allies seek to expand denaturalization

A DOJ memo published in 2025 expands what denaturalization cases should be prioritized.

Some of the new language called for focus on individuals tied to "drug cartels," and suspects of "fraud against private individuals, funds, or corporations." One section of the memo directs staff to prioritize cases the civil division "determines to be sufficiently important to pursue."

Critics fear that could open the door to prosecutions targeting the administration's perceived political enemies or specific minority groups, especially given Trump's threats to remove some of his adversaries from the country.

Young, who worked in the DOJ for nearly 20 years, said the memo's language suggests the division will "target anyone for denaturalization it wants, whenever it chooses – regardless of whether a person poses a threat to the public, or engaged in egregious past conduct."

The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment on the memo.

Trump has repeatedly suggested that U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minnesota, should be removed from the country. In an interview with the New York Times in January, he said his administration was examining criteria for taking away U.S. citizenships with a particular eye for those of Somali descent.

More: Trump considers denaturalization of Somali-Americans who engaged in fraud

The president also floated the false claim that New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is "here illegally" and vowed to "look at everything." Two Republican congressmen, Jason Ogles and Randy Fine, have called on the Justice Department to investigate Mamdani's naturalization documents.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, several Republicans introduced bills this year intended to expand denaturalization.

A bill from Texas Rep. Chip Roy seeks to denaturalize "advocates for socialism, communism, Marxism, or Islamic fundamentalism." A bill from Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Missouri, would create a path to denaturalize anyone convicted of an aggravated felony, fraud or espionage as long as 10 years after naturalization. Currently, the government cannot denaturalize someone for their actions after becoming a citizen except in a few rare circumstances.

While neither bill is expected to become law, experts said it demonstrates a growing desire among Republicans to widen the government's ability to denaturalize some U.S. citizens.

Still, any large-scale denaturalization effort faces a significant obstacle: federal judges. Immigration attorneys and former Justice Department officials said they expect the courts to carefully review each case on its merits, as required by law.

"I would expect federal judges to be extremely careful with these cases," said Kanstroom, of Boston College. "The case law is very clear that citizenship is a precious thing, and it should not be taken away lightly."

Christopher Cann is a national reporter for USA TODAY. Contact him by email at ccann@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Citizenship revoked? Trump administration ramps up controversial plan.