On October 12, agents from Homeland Security Investigations searched the Washington-area home of Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat. The Justice Department called it part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Reporting says investigators are looking at how Omar became a citizen in 2000. No charges have been reported. This issue covers what has been reported, what is still unknown, what the law requires to take away someone’s citizenship, and the case each side makes about the Ilhan Omar investigation.
Omar fled Somalia, lived in a Kenyan refugee camp and arrived in the United States as a refugee in 1995. She became a citizen in 2000. She was first elected to Congress in 2018 and is seeking a fifth term on November 3.
On October 12, Homeland Security Investigations agents, part of the Department of Homeland Security, carried out what the Justice Department called a “judicially authorized search warrant” as part of “an ongoing federal criminal investigation.” The warrant and its supporting affidavit have not been made public.
Reporting on the focus of the investigation centers on Omar’s age. Axios reported that she became a citizen through her father’s naturalization in 2000, when records show she was 17. Under the law at the time, a child had to be under 18 to take citizenship that way. Investigators want to know whether her birth date was misstated on immigration paperwork. A person who was 18 or older would have needed to naturalize separately. Multiple outlets reported that investigators have issued more than a dozen subpoenas, some to relatives, for grand jury testimony in Minnesota.
Separately, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said her office is investigating Omar’s financial disclosures. A congressional watchdog, the Office of Congressional Conduct, earlier reviewed those disclosures and cleared her. Pirro said that review “doesn’t matter.”
The Justice Department has not said which crime it is investigating. No criminal charge and no lawsuit to revoke citizenship has been reported. Omar’s father died in 2020.
Trump and other critics have also alleged for years that Omar married her brother to gain entry to the country. Omar has called such allegations “disgusting lies.” The reports reviewed do not say the warrant covers it.
Supporters say the law applies to members of Congress like anyone else. Border czar Tom Homan said “no one’s above the law.” Pirro said, “If there was a crime that was committed it will be prosecuted.” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said last month, “If we actually move a case forward, it’s not a political case.” Vice President JD Vance said there are “some serious allegations” and that the Justice Department will follow the evidence. He said he was not told about the search in advance.
They point out that the Justice Department says a judge authorized the warrant, which means the government had to show a court its reasons. Supporters describe the underlying question as factual: how old Omar was, and what the paperwork says. Attorney General Todd Blanche has argued that the president has the right to direct investigations, including into political opponents.
On timing, the Justice Department has not addressed the election in its public statements about the search.
Omar’s office called the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and said, “The Congresswoman has done nothing wrong.” Omar wrote that Trump has targeted her for ten years with “baseless lies and smear campaigns” and said, “I will not be silenced.” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other top Democrats called it “continued corrupt weaponization” against Trump’s adversaries. Rep. Jamie Raskin called it “blatant political intimidation.”
Critics start with timing. The Justice Manual says officials should not time an investigative step “for the purpose” of affecting an election and should consult the Public Integrity Section when an election impact is possible. A separate practice, unwritten, discourages overt steps involving candidates within 60 days of an election. The search came about three weeks before Election Day. David Sklansky, a Stanford law professor and former federal prosecutor, said the search may conflict with both the written and unwritten policies, and that “there’s lots of reasons to suspect this is politically motivated.” Gregg Nunziata, a former Justice Department counsel, said the public “has to have confidence” in such actions, especially this close to an election. Sklansky also noted that vindictive-prosecution defenses apply only after charges are filed, so they do not reach investigative steps.
Critics also point to a pattern. At an Ohio rally hours after the search, Trump said Omar “comes from one of the worst countries anywhere on the planet,” and the crowd shouted “Deport.” Vance said in March that “we actually think that Ilhan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud,” without offering evidence. Newsweek counted Omar as the 17th Democrat probed during Trump’s second term. That is Newsweek’s own tally, and it includes preliminary inquiries. Several of those named have not been charged.
Trump said he has “nothing to do” with the search and that it is “really up to the DOJ.”
Congress’s naturalization rules allow citizenship to be revoked when it was obtained illegally, or through willful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. The president cannot revoke citizenship by order.
Most cases are civil. The Justice Department files in federal court and must prove its case with “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence. Civil cases have no statute of limitations. Criminal cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1425 require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and generally carry a 10-year limit. In Kungys v. United States, the Supreme Court said the government must show a misrepresented or concealed fact, willfulness, materiality, and that citizenship was obtained as a result.
If citizenship is revoked, the person generally returns to their prior status, usually lawful permanent resident. Deportation then requires a separate removal process. In June 2025, a Justice Department memo made denaturalization a civil enforcement priority. The Congressional Research Service reports that fewer than 150 people were denaturalized between 1968 and 2013.
1. Whether the Justice Department files anything. That could be criminal charges, a civil complaint to revoke citizenship, or nothing.
2. Whether the warrant becomes public. An unsealed warrant and affidavit would show what investigators told the judge.
3. Pirro’s financial disclosure review, and the vote. Omar’s race in Minnesota’s 5th District is on the November 3 ballot.
Both sides agree an investigation is underway and that the central question is narrow: how old Omar was when her citizenship papers were filed in 2000. They disagree on what the search says about the government. Supporters say the Justice Department told a judge its reasons, no one is above the law, and a court will decide what the evidence shows. Critics say the timing and the public statements around it fit a pattern, and that a search weeks before an election damages trust in the process whatever the facts turn out to be. A court has not yet been asked to decide anything.
A historian traces how the United States has used denaturalization and why courts later limited it. Read it alongside this week’s case and decide for yourself.
Find it on Amazon →As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.