President Donald Trump has intensified his criticism of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., asserting that the congresswoman should resign or face deportation following a federal investigation into alleged immigration fraud and financial disclosure violations. The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department are currently probing Omar, a development that has renewed scrutiny of her citizenship status and sparked debate over the constitutional authority to remove members of Congress.
The investigation centers on claims that Omar used a fake name and potentially entered into a fraudulent marriage to secure citizenship. While Trump has stated that Omar is not legally allowed to serve in Congress, constitutional experts note that the power to judge qualifications and expel members rests with the House and Senate, not the executive branch. The probe itself is not entirely new; the New York Times reported that the Obama-era Justice Department investigated Omar in 2016, an inquiry that was terminated in 2021 under the Biden administration.
What the Right Is Saying
President Trump has argued that Omar’s actions warrant immediate resignation. "What she did was use a fake name and other things that are fake," Trump said. "She used the fake name to be sworn in. I assume she must immediately resign from Congress." He further claimed that Omar "will not be legally allowed to be a member of that august body of politicians," suggesting her seat should be conceded by Democrats.
Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., supported the push for removal, stating, "If the evidence shows that she is not an American, she has to be removed immediately and probably put in prison." Fine added that "the idea that a foreigner might be actually serving in Congress should be terrifying to Americans." Meanwhile, Omar’s Republican opponent in the upcoming election, John Nagel, has used the investigation as a political wedge, asserting, "With the raid on her home, people should keep this in mind. It's a very serious accusation." Nagel also criticized Omar’s priorities, stating, "As far as I'm concerned, Somalia comes first in her life. And we are nothing more than a piggy bank for her."
What the Left Is Saying
Former President Barack Obama has defended Omar, characterizing the current federal actions as politically motivated targeting. "It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say," Obama said. "But that’s exactly what the Trump administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar." Obama further argued that the investigation has turned Omar’s life "upside down" and described it as an effort to "intimidate someone."
Omar’s office has firmly rejected the allegations. A spokeswoman stated that the congresswoman "has repeatedly and unequivocally denied this baseless, disgusting conspiracy theory." Omar herself maintained a stoic demeanor regarding the scrutiny, telling livestreamer Hasan Piker that the situation "tracks for me" and that she is "used to" such attention. Democrats view the revival of the inquiry as a potential distraction and a headache, particularly as the party looks to reclaim control of the House in the upcoming midterms.
What the Numbers Show
The constitutional framework governing congressional membership is outlined in Article I, Section 5, which grants the House and Senate the authority to "be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." The same section allows for the expulsion of a member with a two-thirds vote. The timeline of the federal inquiry shows that scrutiny began in 2016 when Omar ran for the state legislature. The investigation continued into the Biden administration before being terminated in 2021. In October 2026, federal agents raided Omar’s home, seizing electronics and documents. Fox contributor Paul Mauro highlighted the continuity of the probe, asking, "Who ordered [the investigation] closed?" noting that both the Obama and Biden administrations had opened cases. University of Minnesota political science professor Kathryn Pearson noted the dual utility of the investigation for both parties: "Omar will talk about and say, 'They've looked into this. Nothing came about it,'... But I think it's also a talking point that Republicans will use."
The Bottom Line
The situation presents a complex legal and political challenge. While Trump and some Republicans advocate for Omar’s removal, the process requires action by the House of Representatives, not the President. The existence of a prior investigation that was closed without charges complicates the narrative for both sides; Democrats can point to the lack of past indictments, while Republicans argue that new evidence or the mere existence of the probe raises sufficient questions about citizenship. With midterm elections imminent, the investigation serves as a potent political tool for Omar’s opponent, John Nagel, and a potential distraction for Democrats seeking to regain the House. The outcome will likely depend on whether the current DOJ and DHS probes yield definitive evidence of fraud sufficient to trigger constitutional expulsion proceedings.