The test most adult immigrants take to become naturalized U.S. citizens could become substantially more difficult under changes the Trump administration is considering, the head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said this week.
Joseph Edlow, director of USCIS, told a conference hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington that the current naturalization exam is “just too easy” and that officials are looking at ways to make questions "a little more thought-provoking." He said the test should not be “impossible” but should probe applicants’ attachment to the Constitution and suggested the introduction of an essay portion and wider discretion in scoring.
Edlow made the remarks as the administration has taken steps to broaden USCIS’s investigative and enforcement powers, including a recent change expanding the agency’s ability to order expedited removal and to investigate civil and criminal violations of immigration law. He also told Axios that essay prompts might include questions such as “What does it mean to be an American?” or “Who was your favorite founding father?”
Under the current naturalization process, applicants must pass a civics exam and demonstrate basic English proficiency. The civics exam is drawn from a set of 100 possible questions published by USCIS; applicants are asked 10 questions and must answer six correctly to pass. Questions cover U.S. history and government, including items about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and historical events such as the Civil War.
Edlow defended tougher screening as part of a broader effort to combat perceived fraud in the naturalization process. “I am declaring war on fraud,” he said at the conference, adding that USCIS is not merely a service agency but has a law-enforcement mission. Earlier this month, the agency issued a memo that revised the standard for assessing an applicant’s “good moral character,” directing adjudicators to consider a wider range of conduct and viewpoints, including screening for what the memo characterized as “anti-American” views.
Legal scholars and immigration experts said the proposed changes raise questions about objectivity, implementation and the potential for legal challenges. Daniel Kanstroom, a professor at Boston College Law School, noted that the civics test has been revised periodically but said an essay section would create new questions about who would evaluate responses and what standards would govern scoring. "The question comes down to are we a fundamentally open country or are we a fundamentally closed country," Kanstroom said, adding that the proposals reveal a tension in how the administration defines citizenship.
USCIS has not issued formal regulatory changes or proposed rulemaking to alter the naturalization test. Agency officials have framed the comments as part of a commitment to ensure that applicants for citizenship understand and embrace the Constitution’s principles. Opponents of the proposals and some legal experts say open-ended or ideological questions could introduce subjectivity and increase the potential for inconsistent adjudications.
The comments come amid other administration initiatives affecting legal immigration. Earlier this year the White House advanced a high-dollar investor visa program that some critics characterized as treating residency as a commodity, while simultaneously pursuing stricter standards for naturalization. The administration’s August USCIS memo on “good moral character” tightened discretionary standards and instructed officers to take a broader view of conduct that might bear on an applicant’s suitability for citizenship.
Advocates for immigrants warned that ideological or essay-based tests could discriminate against applicants with differing viewpoints or limited formal education, and could disproportionately affect nonnative English speakers despite existing language accommodations. USCIS currently provides certain exceptions and accommodations for applicants who are older or have lived in the United States for many years, as well as testing methods that allow for interpreters in limited circumstances.
Any formal proposal to change the naturalization exam would likely prompt debate in Congress, scrutiny from civil rights groups and potential litigation. Changes to the test would also require USCIS to develop new training, scoring rubrics and quality-control measures to ensure consistent application across thousands of field offices nationwide.
For now, the administration’s statements reflect intent rather than a finalized policy. USCIS’s director framed the potential revisions as part of an effort to ensure that those who become citizens demonstrate not only factual knowledge about U.S. government and history but also a demonstrable attachment to constitutional principles. The agency has signaled that future administrative actions could follow, but has not announced a timetable or released draft regulatory language outlining specific changes to the naturalization exam.