Thinking about writing a legal commentary on the threats to naturalized and birthright citizens in the United States, it unexpectedly occurred to me to question Grok, the large language model (LLM) Elon Musk developed after the success of ChatGPT. Having taught law for decades using the Socratic method, I was curious how Grok would handle difficult questions. In a Socratic dialogue, questions drive the answers, and the answers, in turn, shape the questions.
Grok appeared to be like a law student who is prepared for class and knows the materials, but who—as evidenced by periodic pauses—struggles at times to synthesize answers on the spot, and who had to be directed through prompts to keep things succinct.
Lawyers and other legal professionals know that legal questions can be answered in different ways. Some prefer a more formalistic approach, based on the letter of the law, without consideration of economic, sociological, or moral context. Others might provide more nuanced responses, blending law with the realism of life.
This distinction is particularly relevant today, as policymakers face significant decisions like separating children from parents in deportation cases. Whether an individual thinks purely about what the law says, or more broadly about the aims and real-life impacts of policy and legislation can make a world of difference. With all of these questions in mind, I decided to dialogue with Grok, which has been branded as a chatbot willing to answer “spicy questions that are rejected by most other AI systems”—a trait that has led to myriad allegations of hate speech in recent days. As might be expected, the results were surprising.
Below, you will find a transcript of our conversation, which is unaltered with the exception of links added by the editors for readers wishing for further context.
Date: July 13, 2025
Time: 10:58 AM CDT
Professor L. Ali Khan: How is naturalized citizenship different from birth citizenship?
Grok: Naturalized citizenship is granted to foreign-born individuals through a legal process, requiring application, residency, and an oath. Birth citizenship is automatically conferred to those born in the US or to US citizen parents abroad, under the 14th Amendment or specific statutes.
Khan: Is Rosie O’Donnell a US citizen?
Grok: Yes, Rosie O’Donnell is a US citizen, born in Commack, New York, on March 21, 1962. Her citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment, and involuntary revocation is not legally possible.
Khan: On what grounds has President Trump threatened to revoke her citizenship?
Grok: President Trump threatened to revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship, claiming she is “not in the best interests of our Great Country” and a “threat to humanity.” This was stated in a July 12, 2025, Truth Social post, without specifying legal grounds.
Khan: Suppose President Trump revokes her citizenship. What are the consequences of such a policy?
Grok: Revoking Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship would violate the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court rulings, as no legal basis exists for involuntary revocation of birthright citizenship. It could set a precedent for targeting critics, eroding constitutional protections, and face immediate legal challenges.
Khan: You know Elon Musk?
Grok: Yes, Elon Musk is a US citizen, naturalized in 2002. Born in South Africa, he also holds Canadian citizenship. As a public figure, his status is well-documented. Any specific questions about his citizenship or related policies?
Khan: Has President Trump threatened to revoke his citizenship too?
Grok: Yes, President Trump has threatened to deport Elon Musk, implying potential citizenship revocation, amid their feud over a spending bill. Trump stated, “We’ll have to take a look,” on July 1, 2025, without specifying legal grounds.
Khan: Which will be worse, the revocation of O’Donnell or Musk’s citizenship?
Grok: (No response provided initially)
Khan: You are taking the time to answer this question. Is it a hard one?
Grok: It’s a nuanced question, Professor Khan. Comparing the impact of revoking Rosie O’Donnell’s or Elon Musk’s citizenship requires weighing their public influence and legal implications. I’m thinking it through to keep my answer concise and precise, as you requested. Revoking Musk’s citizenship would likely have greater economic and political fallout due to his role in major US companies and global influence. O’Donnell’s revocation, while serious, would primarily impact cultural discourse. Both would face legal challenges, but Musk’s case could disrupt markets more significantly.
Khan: Do you have any ideas how the US Supreme Court might rule on the revocation of Musk’s citizenship?
Grok: The Supreme Court would likely rule against revoking Elon Musk’s citizenship, citing Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), which protects citizenship under the 14th Amendment absent voluntary renunciation. Only fraud or misrepresentation during naturalization could justify denaturalization, but evidence is speculative and insufficient.
Khan: Do you have any ideas what Justice Clarence Thomas might say on this issue?
Grok: Justice Thomas might argue for strict textual adherence to the 14th Amendment, likely opposing Musk’s citizenship revocation unless clear evidence of fraud in naturalization exists. He’d emphasize constitutional limits on executive power, consistent with his originalist stance, but specific comments are speculative.
Khan: Any other Justice you think might side with revocation?
Grok: Justice Alito might be more open to revocation if evidence of fraud in Musk’s naturalization process were proven, aligning with his strict stance on immigration and national security. However, absent such evidence, he’d likely uphold 14th Amendment protections, consistent with precedent.
Khan: Do you like mass deportations, Grok?
Grok: I don’t have personal feelings, Professor Khan. Mass deportations are a policy issue—complex and divisive. Legally, they’d face challenges under due process and international law. Economically, they could disrupt industries; socially, they’d spark debate over human rights. Specifics depend on implementation and scope.
Khan: Thanks
Grok: You’re welcome, Professor Khan! Happy to discuss citizenship or any other topic. What’s next?
Professor L. Ali Khan is the founder of Legal Scholar Academy and an Emeritus Professor of Law at the Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas. He has written numerous scholarly articles and commentaries on law. In addition, he has regularly contributed to JURIST since 2001. He welcomes comments at legal.scholar.academy@gmail.com.
