# EXPLAINER: $570 More — Trump's Tax on the American Dream of Citizenship

> On June 22, 2026, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed rule that, if adopted, would raise the

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Analysis
- Published: 2026-06-23
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/decryptage-570-dollars-de-plus-la-taxe-trump-sur-le-reve-de-devenir-americain

## Key takeaways

- DHS proposed on June 22, 2026 to raise the Form N-400 fee from $760 to $1,330 for paper filings and from $710 to $1,280 online, with a 60-day comment period.
- Form N-336, used to request a hearing after a denied application, would rise from $830 to $1,475 on paper.
- The proposal would eliminate fee waivers and the $380 reduced fee, leaving only an exception for active-duty military and veterans.
- DHS says the increases recover adjudication costs, including new vetting such as social media checks and neighborhood checks. The author rejects this justification as circular.
- Critics quoted in the article, including former USCIS official Doug Rand and attorney Rosanna Berardi, see the move as building barriers to legal immigrants.

## Introduction: the price of the American dream just went up 75%

### A proposal that changes everything for hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants

On **June 22, 2026**, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed rule that, if adopted, would raise the American citizenship application fee from **$760 to $1,330** for paper filings, and from **$710 to $1,280** for online filings. That represents an increase of **75% to 80%** depending on the method chosen — the most drastic hike in decades for Form N-400, the central document of the naturalization process in the United States.

This is not a technical reform, nor a simple inflationary adjustment. It is a **deliberate political decision**, inscribed in a broader logic: making legal immigration more costly, more difficult, and more selective. The proposal, published in the Federal Register on **June 23, 2026**, is subject to a **60-day** public comment period. During that window, citizens, advocacy groups, and lawyers can respond. But the signal sent by the Trump administration is unambiguous.

### A rule published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2026

The American regulatory mechanism requires that any new rule go through a formal procedure: publication in the Federal Register, public comments, review, then publication of a final rule. The USCIS — the federal service responsible for legal immigration cases — is **almost entirely funded by fees collected** from applicants, unlike most federal agencies that receive congressional appropriations. This particular budgetary structure officially serves as the justification for the increases.

But behind the accounting argument lies a political strategy. DHS explicitly stated that **previous administrations deliberately kept naturalization fees low** to "encourage citizenship and integration." The Trump administration says it no longer shares that philosophy. That is a rare — and revealing — admission about its true intentions.

*I am going to tell you something nobody really wants to hear: there is a clear difference between wanting to control illegal immigration — which I fully understand — and erecting financial walls against legal immigrants who have played by the rules for years. This proposal crosses that line. Reforming is one thing. Punishing those who made the hardest choice — to immigrate legally — is another.*

## The mechanics of the numbers: breaking down the proposed fee hike

### From Form N-400 to the reconsideration request: everything goes up

Form **N-400**, the Application for Naturalization, is the heart of the American naturalization process. Under the current rule established in 2024, filing it costs **$760 for paper** and **$710 online**. The DHS proposal would raise those amounts to **$1,330** and **$1,280** respectively. That is a nominal increase of **$570 for paper** — exactly the figure that gives this article its title.

But the hike does not stop there. Form **N-336** — which allows an applicant whose citizenship was denied to request a hearing for reconsideration — would see its fees rise from **$830 to $1,475** for paper (an increase of **$645, or 77.7%**) and from **$780 to $1,425** online. In other words, even the path to appeal an unjust denial becomes financially prohibitive for moderate-income families.

### A historical context: naturalization fees have a long political history

In **2016**, it cost **$595** to file a naturalization application. In 2024, under the Biden administration, fees were raised to **$760 for paper and $710 online** — the first substantial hike in nearly a decade. Those figures were then presented as a compromise between the need to fund the agency and the goal of civic inclusion. The 2026 proposal breaks with that logic of balance.

For a skilled immigrant who came on a work visa, waited years for permanent residence, and then another **five years before becoming eligible for naturalization**, the accumulation of fees represents a considerable burden. We are talking about an individual who has respected every rule, paid their taxes, contributed to the economy — and who now faces an additional bill of $570 for the final step.

*I must say it: the mechanics of these numbers are not neutral. A 75% hike in two years cannot be justified by adjudication costs. It is justified by a desire to filter. This is no longer an administrative fee — it is a disguised solvency test presented as a procedure.*

## The elimination of exemptions: the hardest blow against the most vulnerable

### Waivers designed for inclusion, now eliminated

Until now, the system provided two financial safety nets for low-income applicants. The first was a **full fee waiver** for people whose household income did not exceed 150% of the federal poverty threshold, or who were receiving public benefits such as Medicaid or food stamps (SNAP). The second was a **reduced fee of $380** for those whose household income fell between 150% and 400% of the poverty threshold — meaning, in 2026, a one-person household earning up to approximately $62,600 per year.

The Trump administration's proposal would **eliminate both mechanisms**. The only exception maintained would be for **active-duty military members and veterans** applying under sections 328 or 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. For everyone else, the flat rate would be **$1,330** on paper, with no possibility of reduction or waiver, regardless of the applicant's financial situation.

### Who exactly are the people affected?

According to historical USCIS data cited by immigrant rights groups, **nearly 40% of naturalization applicants had used a fee waiver or the reduced rate** prior to recent regulatory changes. That figure represents hundreds of thousands of people — essential workers, caregivers, farmworkers, cooks, technicians — who built their lives in the United States and whose only obstacle to citizenship is financial.

Doug Rand, a former senior USCIS official under the Biden administration, described the logic of this proposal as suspect: **"The only credible explanation for raising citizenship fees in isolation is that Trump 2.0 is eager to erect yet more undue obstacles to legal immigrants."** That quote, published by CBS News on June 22, 2026, is all the more striking because it comes from an insider of the system — someone who knows its workings from the inside.

*When you eliminate waivers for the poor, you are not making immigration policy. You are making class policy. The most vulnerable — those who have the most to gain from citizenship and the least means to pay for it — are punished first. I do not think it is possible to present this any other way.*

## The DHS's official justification: adjudication costs and enhanced vetting

### The budgetary argument: USCIS funds itself

The Department of Homeland Security defends its proposal with an argument that appears solid on the surface: USCIS does not receive funds from the general federal budget. It must cover its own operating costs through fees collected from applicants. **"The objective of the proposed rule is to periodically adjust fees to recover the full cost of adjudication,"** DHS stated in a press release issued on June 22, 2026.

The agency also argues that **new vetting procedures mandated by the Trump administration's executive orders** — including social media checks, expanded interviews, and the reactivation of "neighborhood checks" (inquiries with neighbors and coworkers of applicants) — substantially increase the cost of processing each case. According to DHS, the current fees established under the previous administration **"do not cover the cost of the checks required under President Trump's executive orders."**

### The weakness of the argument: a 75% hike disproportionate to real costs

Legal experts and immigration attorneys have pointed out that **the cost argument does not withstand scrutiny**. If the current $760 fee does not cover processing costs, why such a massive hike — and why target only naturalization rather than all types of applications? Fragomen, a globally specialized immigration law firm, noted in its June 22, 2026 analysis that the proposed increases vary between **75% and 83% depending on the filing method** — a gap that far exceeds any ordinary inflationary justification.

Rosanna Berardi, an immigration attorney based in Buffalo, New York, summed up the fundamental inconsistency in a statement to ABC News: **"When you simultaneously increase fees, eliminate waivers, and add new layers of vetting like neighborhood checks and an expanded examination of 'good moral character,' you are not streamlining a system. You are building walls inside it."**

*I looked long and hard for a charitable reading of this budgetary argument. I cannot find one. An agency that increases its own processing costs through additional procedures — then uses those extra costs to justify a fee hike on applicants — creates a troubling circularity. It is like a mechanic adding unnecessary checks to your car in order to justify a higher bill.*

## The political context: naturalization in the crosshairs of Trump 2.0

### Executive orders that deeply reshape the naturalization process

The fee hike proposal is not an isolated act. It is part of a series of decisions by the Trump administration aimed at **toughening and restricting access to American citizenship**. From the start of the second term, executive orders broadened the criteria allowing USCIS to deny or delay a naturalization application. The standard of **"good moral character"** — long applied in a relatively predictable manner — has been reinterpreted more aggressively.

The administration has also reactivated dormant practices such as **neighborhood checks**, in which federal agents question the neighbors, employers, and colleagues of citizenship applicants. That practice, abandoned for decades because it was perceived as intrusive and unreliable, was presented as a tool of "enhanced vetting." Combined with **systematic social media checks**, it creates a climate of uncertainty for all naturalization candidates.

### Denaturalization as a political tool

In parallel, the Trump administration has intensified its efforts at **denaturalization** — that is, the revocation of citizenships already granted to people accused of having committed fraud during their application. While this judicial procedure is not new, its acceleration under Trump 2.0 sends a clear message: **American citizenship is now presented as revocable**, even years after it was granted. That is a profound paradigm shift in the relationship between the state and naturalized citizens.

Bloomberg Law reported on June 22, 2026 that this new fee proposal arrives precisely in this context — the administration seeking to **revoke the citizenship of certain naturalized persons accused of fraud**. The simultaneity of these movements — making access more difficult and costly on one side, challenging existing citizenships on the other — paints a coherent and disturbing picture.

*What strikes me most about this logic is that it treats citizenship no longer as an outcome — the reward for successful integration — but as a potential threat to manage. When a state begins to view its own future citizens with default suspicion, something fundamental has fractured in the social contract.*

## The reactions of civil society and the legal community

### Immigration attorneys unanimously critical

The reaction of the specialized legal community was immediate and univocal. From the moment the proposal was published on June 22, 2026, immigration law firms such as **Fragomen** and **Erickson Immigration Group** published detailed analyses highlighting the scale of the changes. These firms particularly pointed out that the increase for low-income applicants would be even more devastating: for those who until now had access to the reduced $380 fee, the new proposal would represent a **250% hike** — jumping directly to $1,330 with no intermediate option.

Erickson Immigration Group recalled in its June 22, 2026 analysis that USCIS had already conducted a fee review in 2024, raising naturalization fees from **$640 to $760** — the first substantial hike in nearly a decade. Less than two years later, a new 75% increase is applied on top of that already revised base. **The pace of increases is unprecedented in the recent history of USCIS.**

### Immigrant rights organizations on high alert

Historic immigrant rights organizations such as the **American Immigration Council** highlighted the disproportionate impact of eliminating waivers on the most vulnerable populations. In a broader historical context, those same organizations had successfully challenged a similar proposal in 2020 during Trump's first term — one aiming to raise naturalization fees to $1,170 while eliminating waivers — which was ultimately blocked by a federal court in California.

The question now is whether similar legal opposition will again be possible. The judicial landscape of 2026 is very different from that of 2020: **the Supreme Court and many federal appellate courts have been profoundly reshaped** under Trump's two terms, making any legal challenge more uncertain.

*I remember perfectly the 2020 legal battles against Trump's first attempt at the same thing. Those legal victories seemed decisive at the time. Today, with a reconfigured judiciary, I am no longer as confident that the same remedies will produce the same results. That is the real difference between 2020 and 2026.*

## The 60-day public comment window: a space for democratic resistance

### How does the public comment process work?

Under American administrative law, any proposed rule published in the Federal Register must go through a **public comment period** before it can be finalized. The standard duration is 60 days — exactly what was granted for this proposal. During this window, any person — individual, organization, business, or local government — may submit formal observations that the agency is **legally required to examine and address** before publishing a final rule.

This mechanism is not merely a formality. Proposed rules have been withdrawn, modified, or substantially amended following massive waves of public comments. In 2019–2020, during the first similar attempt under Trump, the process generated tens of thousands of opposing comments — a pressure that contributed, alongside legal challenges, to blocking the final rule.

### A concrete tool, but insufficient on its own

Immigration attorneys and rights advocacy groups are already calling on their clients and supporters to **actively participate in the comment period**. Fragomen explicitly noted in its analysis that the agency is **"required to give serious consideration"** to public comments, but that there is no minimum or maximum period for the review phase. In theory, USCIS could publish an accelerated final rule as soon as the 60-day period ends.

The practical reality is that this administration has demonstrated a **willingness to advance its immigration priorities rapidly**, relying on sometimes contestable legal justifications. The 60 days of comments are a real democratic space — but they are not sufficient on their own. They must be accompanied by preemptive litigation, parliamentary pressure, and sustained public mobilization.

*I believe in the democratic process — truly. But I would be dishonest if I did not say that 60 days of comments against an administration that has clearly announced its intentions, in a reconfigured judicial landscape, is an asymmetric battle. One must participate — and participate massively — while knowing that this single lever alone will likely not suffice.*

## The real economic impact on immigrant communities

### When $570 represents several weeks of work

To understand the real impact of this hike, it must be contextualized within the concrete economic conditions of the affected populations. A worker at the federal minimum wage — currently set at **$7.25 per hour**, unchanged since 2009 — earns roughly **$1,160 gross per month** working full-time. The additional $570 therefore represents **nearly three weeks of gross work** for that profile.

Even in states where the minimum wage is higher, the sum remains significant. In many immigrant households eligible for naturalization — dual-income families where both adults hold service, restaurant, or care sector jobs — the choice between **paying $1,330 for a citizenship application** and covering rent, childcare, or food for a month can be painful. That is not an abstraction. That is the reality of millions of legal permanent residents in the United States.

### Cascade effects: postponement, abandonment, increased vulnerability

Immigration experts have identified several predictable cascade effects if the rule is finalized as written. The first is the **indefinite postponement of naturalization applications**: eligible immigrants simply waiting until they have saved the required amount — which can take months or years at a modest income level. In the meantime, they remain permanent residents, without the right to vote, more exposed to future changes in immigration policy.

The second effect is the **outright abandonment of the process** by a significant fraction of eligible applicants. Studies conducted during previous fee hike attempts indicate that a substantial increase in fees, combined with the elimination of waivers, directly translates into a **lower naturalization rate** among lower-income brackets. That is precisely what American administrations historically sought to avoid — and what the Trump administration now explicitly accepts.

*There is a bitter irony in the fact that a country still defining itself, in its rhetoric, as a "nation of immigrants" is systematically making the final act of that integration — becoming a citizen, voting, fully participating — financially out of reach for its most modest members. The America I admire is the one that overcomes this contradiction, not the one that aggravates it.*

## International comparison: what does citizenship cost elsewhere?

### Naturalization fees in other Western democracies

To place the American proposal in comparative context, it is instructive to examine what naturalization costs in other major democracies. In **Canada**, citizenship application fees are **$630 Canadian dollars** (approximately $460 USD in 2026) for adults — and $100 Canadian for minors. In **France**, naturalization by decree is **free of charge**. In the **United Kingdom**, fees are substantial — around £1,330 — but accompanied by a maintained waiver framework for cases of financial hardship.

This overview shows that the United States is not alone in charging naturalization fees, but that the **combination of a massive hike and the elimination of any access mechanism for the poorest** sets it apart from the practices of most of its democratic allies. The maintained military exception — laudable in itself — paradoxically reinforces this observation: citizenship remains accessible to those who serve in the armed forces, but becomes prohibitive for other low-wage workers.

### The place of naturalization in the American democratic project

Since the origins of the American Republic, naturalization has been seen not as a routine administrative service, but as a **founding civic act**. That is why successive administrations, Republican and Democrat alike, have maintained naturalization fees below the real cost of processing — an implicit subsidy justified by the democratic value of civic integration. **DHS itself acknowledges this fact in its proposal**, noting that previous administrations maintained reduced fees to "encourage naturalization" — before specifying that the current administration "no longer believes that naturalization benefit requests should get lower fees at the potential expense of other immigration benefits."

That formulation is strikingly candid. It does not hide the change in philosophy. It affirms it. Citizenship is no longer presented as a priority to encourage — it is **a transaction like any other**, whose price must cover costs, without favoritism.

*What deeply troubles me about this official DHS formulation is its very candor. One is not pretending to improve the system. One is saying clearly: the policy of encouraging naturalization is over. This kind of ideological honesty is rare — and precisely for that reason, it demands that we respond with the same clarity.*

## The role of social media and digital vetting in the cost equation

### New layers of verification that change the real cost of processing

One of the justifications advanced by DHS to explain the necessity of a fee hike involves the **new layers of verification mandated by Trump's executive orders**. Among these, the **systematic monitoring of social media** of naturalization applicants has taken on growing importance since 2017. Under the second term, this practice has been codified and expanded: USCIS agents are now expected to examine public profiles — and in some cases non-public ones — on platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, or TikTok.

This digital dimension of vetting is particularly concerning for jurists. On one hand, it introduces significant subjectivity into the adjudication process — personal posts, shared political articles, or old comments potentially being interpreted as evidence of a lack of "good moral character." On the other hand, **these checks have a real cost in time and human resources** for the agency — making them, paradoxically, a partially honest element of the fee justification, even if the marginal cost per case remains difficult to publicly quantify.

### "Neighborhood checks": the return of a practice from the past

The reactivation of **neighborhood checks** is perhaps the least covered but most symbolically heavy aspect of the new naturalization procedure. Federal agents questioning an applicant's neighbors, employers, and colleagues: that is a practice more evocative of the 1950s — the Red Scare, FBI surveillance files — than of 21st-century administrative procedure. CBS News reported on June 22, 2026 that this practice had been **"revived after a long dormant period."**

For immigrants, the psychological impact of this surveillance is real. Knowing that one's neighbors may be questioned, that one's online posts are scrutinized, that USCIS is actively looking for reasons to doubt one's "good moral character" — all of this contributes to creating a **climate of intimidation** around a process that should, on the contrary, be a celebration of successful integration.

*I struggle to reconcile the image of America that I defend — open, dynamic, attractive to the best talents and courageous souls of the world — with that of a federal agent knocking on neighbors' doors to ask questions about the citizenship applicant next door. That is not the country that inspired the world for two centuries. It is a caricature of national security that betrays its own founding values.*

## Legal immigration in Trump's broader immigration strategy

### Beyond illegal immigration: the toughening of legal immigration

The Trump administration has structured its communication around an apparently reasonable distinction: we want to stop illegal immigration, not legal immigration. Yet a close examination of the actual policies shows that **legal immigration has also progressively been toughened** under both of Trump's terms. Work visa processing times have increased. Eligibility criteria have been tightened. The number of visas granted in certain categories has decreased. And now, naturalization fees are jumping 75%.

Rosanna Berardi, the attorney cited by ABC News, expressed this paradox clearly: **"It is entirely consistent with the broader message of the Trump administration: making legal immigration harder, more costly, and less accessible — not just illegal immigration."** That reading is corroborated by the trajectory of policies observed since January 2025: at every stage of the legal immigrant's journey, new barriers have been added.

### The American economy facing the paradox of legal immigration

The fundamental paradox of this policy is that it enters into direct tension with the needs of the American economy. In a country facing a **structural labor shortage in many sectors** — healthcare, agriculture, technology, services — restricting access to citizenship for legal immigrants already present slows their full economic integration. American citizens have access to more jobs, security clearance levels, government contracts, and professional opportunities than simple permanent residents.

Economists have long documented that naturalization produces a **measurable increase in immigrant wages and productivity** — which benefits the entire economy. By making naturalization more difficult and costly, one does not obtain fewer immigrants; one obtains less well-integrated, less productive, less civically engaged immigrants. That is a **real economic cost** for the country, invisible in USCIS budget discussions but very present in macroeconomic data.

*Trump is often effective on the economy — I readily concede that. But here, immigration policy enters into direct contradiction with his own economic objectives. Wanting a strong and dynamic economy while making the integration of legal workers longer and costlier is an inconsistency I cannot ignore. The United States cannot afford to deprive itself of its most motivated future citizens.*

## Historical precedents: the failed attempts of 2020

### 2020: when a similar rule was blocked by the courts

The June 2026 proposal is not without precedent. In August 2020, during Trump's first term, USCIS published a final rule providing for raising naturalization fees from $640 to **$1,170** — an 83% hike — while eliminating waivers for virtually all applicants. The rule was set to take effect October 2, 2020. A **federal court in northern California** blocked it three days before its implementation, granting a preliminary injunction on the grounds that the administration had not provided sufficient data to justify the hike and had not considered the impact on low-income populations.

That ruling highlighted a central legal vulnerability of such proposals: the obligation for federal agencies to demonstrate the **rationality of their regulatory decisions** and to consider their impacts on different populations. The question for 2026 is whether the same vulnerability can be exploited again — in a very different judicial context.

### 2026: a reconfigured judicial landscape

Under Trump's two terms, the federal judiciary has been profoundly transformed. With three Supreme Court nominations and hundreds of nominations to appellate and district courts, the federal courts have shifted toward a more deferential interpretation of executive authority in administrative law. The Chevron doctrine — which required courts to defer to agencies' regulatory interpretations — has been weakened by recent Supreme Court decisions, but the net result for challenges to immigration rules remains uncertain.

Organizations like the **American Immigration Council** have signaled that they are closely examining the proposal to identify grounds for a potential legal challenge. But even in the most combative circles of immigration law, pessimism is palpable. **The legal battle of 2026 will be harder than that of 2020.** It is not impossible — but it is not won in advance.

*I am someone who believes deeply in the rule of law — and precisely for that reason, I am uncomfortable facing a judicial landscape reshaped so significantly in so little time. An independent judiciary is not an obstacle to democracy: it is one of its pillars. When it weakens, the entire structure trembles. And legal immigrants — who depend on courts to vindicate their rights — feel it before everyone else.*

## What this proposal reveals about the Trumpian vision of national belonging

### Citizenship as a privilege, not a right to be encouraged

At its core, this fee proposal raises a profound philosophical question about the **nature of American citizenship**. In the traditional vision — the one that prevailed for most of the 20th century — naturalization was presented as the culmination of an integration process that society had an interest in facilitating. A naturalized immigrant is a full citizen: they vote, they can serve in public office, they are fully engaged in the civic life of the country.

The Trumpian vision, as expressed in this proposal, is different. Citizenship is treated there as a **government service that applicants must fully fund** — with no public subsidy, no accommodation for poverty, no signal that society itself has an interest in the outcome. It is a transactional, contractual vision that treats national belonging as a commodity rather than as a common good.

### The message sent to legal immigrants around the world

The United States has long been perceived as the destination of choice for the world's most ambitious and determined immigrants. That reputation is a considerable geostrategic asset — a **soft power** that few countries can match. When Washington signals that the path to full citizenship is narrowing and being monetized, that message is heard beyond American borders.

In Canada, Australia, Germany, and France — countries that actively compete to attract skilled immigrants — migration policy officials are closely watching the American evolution. **Every additional barrier erected in Washington is an opportunity for its demographic competitors.** In a global competition for talent, this proposal is not neutral. It is a signal of the voluntary weakening of a competitive advantage that the United States spent generations building.

*I will end with a confession: I am pro-West, without ambiguity. I believe that liberal democracies, with all their flaws, represent the best system of political organization humanity has produced. And it is precisely because I defend this West that I refuse to see it weakened from within. This proposal does not attack an external enemy. It erodes the credibility of a promise America made to itself — and to the world — for two centuries. Trump is sometimes a necessary evil. Here, he is simply a bad choice.*

## Conclusion: 60 days to respond, years to repair

### A window closing, consequences that last

The 60-day public comment window open since June 23, 2026 is a real but limited opportunity. It allows civil society, attorneys, community organizations, and concerned individuals to make their voices heard in the regulatory process. If this window closes in indifference and the rule is finalized, the consequences will be long-lasting. Hundreds of thousands of eligible legal immigrants will face a choice this country should not impose on them: **further delaying their full civic integration for lack of financial means**, or going into debt to pay a bureaucracy undergoing fee inflation.

The economic and civic gains of naturalization — documented, measured, real — will be deferred or lost. And the signal sent to would-be immigrants around the world — that the United States now prefers solvent candidates over meritorious ones — will have long-term effects on the country's attractiveness, its demography, its capacity for innovation. **This is not immigration policy. It is organized decline policy.**

### What to retain from this proposal

In summary, the USCIS proposal of June 22, 2026 does four distinct and cumulative things: it **raises naturalization fees by 75%**, it **eliminates all financial assistance for the poorest**, it **makes the appeals process more burdensome** in case of refusal, and it **fits into a broader context of toughening access to citizenship** — enhanced vetting, reactivated neighborhood checks, reinterpreted standards of good moral character. Each of these measures would already be concerning taken alone. Together, they form a coherent system whose effect — and very probably whose intent — is to make American citizenship a privilege reserved for those who can afford it.

America has been great because it was able to welcome, integrate, and emancipate millions of men and women who came in search of a better life. That greatness is not measured by the wallet of naturalization applicants. It is measured by the quality of the promise made — and kept — to all those who chose to bet on it.

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [CBS News — Trump plan would increase citizenship application fee by $570 — June 22, 2026](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-citizenship-application-fee-trump-administration-uscis/)

- [ABC News — DHS proposes 75% increase in fees for US citizenship paperwork — June 22, 2026](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dhs-proposes-75-increase-fees-us-citizenship-paperwork/story?id=134106501)

- [Bloomberg Law — Trump DHS Proposal Would Hike Naturalization Fees for Immigrants — June 22, 2026](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/trump-dhs-proposal-would-hike-naturalization-fees-for-immigrants)

### Secondary sources

- [Fragomen — DHS Proposes Significant Increase in Filing Fees for Naturalization Applications — June 22, 2026](https://www.fragomen.com/insights/united-states-dhs-proposes-significant-increase-in-filing-fees-for-naturalization-applications-and-related-filings.html)

- [Erickson Immigration Group — DHS Proposes Significant Increases to Naturalization Fees — June 22, 2026](https://eiglaw.com/dhs-proposes-significant-increases-to-naturalization-fees/)

- [Washington Examiner — USCIS boosts citizenship application fee to $1,300 — June 22, 2026](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/4619023/uscis-boosts-citizenship-application-fee/)

- [Geo News — Trump Administration proposes 75% citizenship fee hike, raising cost to $1,330 — June 23, 2026](https://www.geo.tv/latest/669925-trump-administration-proposes-75-citizenship-fee-hike-raising-cost-to-1330)

- [American Immigration Council — Federal Court Halts Massive USCIS Fee Increases for Immigration Applications — 2020](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/uscis-fee-increase-lawsuit/)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/decryptage-570-dollars-de-plus-la-taxe-trump-sur-le-reve-de-devenir-americain