Federal agents executed a court-ordered search warrant at the Washington, D.C. home of Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar on Monday as part of a Department of Homeland Security investigation into potential immigration fraud, reviving allegations that have followed the congresswoman for more than a decade.
The search, authorized by a federal judge, is tied to long-standing questions about Omar’s 2000 naturalization and a 2009 marriage to a man, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, whom critics have alleged may be her biological brother. Omar’s father claimed she was 17 when he became a citizen in 2000, but her original documents reportedly indicated a 1981 birth year rather than 1982 — a discrepancy that matters because an 18-year-old would have needed to apply for citizenship separately.
A 2016 City Journal report first raised questions about whether Omar had legally married her first husband, noting the couple had only held an Islamic ceremony, and whether her 2009 marriage to Elmi was intended to secure him a visa from Great Britain. According to a Washington Post report cited on the podcast The Drill Down, when Elmi applied for permanent residency through that marriage in 2019, immigration authorities requested additional information about the marriage’s validity, and he subsequently withdrew the application.
“What’s interesting about that is that there have never been firm answers to the specific allegations that have been made,” said Peter Schweizer, host of The Drill Down, discussing the case with co-host Eric Eggers. “This is not a minor issue, just like the question about whether she married her brother to help him get status in the United States. These are very specific questions on immigration forms, and it happens thousands of times every year that people are deported because they lied about very important specific material things.”
Schweizer said the allegations have gone unanswered for years. “It’s been going on for a decade, and she has never answered the questions. She’s charged ‘racism.’ She’s sneered. She said this is bigoted. She’s never answered these questions, but they’re legitimate questions,” he said.
Obama Weighs In
Former President Barack Obama publicly defended Omar, posting that she is being targeted over her political views by President Trump. Schweizer called that claim ironic given Obama’s own administration’s handling of the Steele Dossier against Trump in December 2016.
“There’s a rich irony there, given we now know that in December of 2016, Obama basically weaponized the Steele Dossier to target his own political opponent — Donald Trump,” Schweizer said.
Schweizer also suggested Obama’s rare public intervention might signal Democratic concern about the strength of the case. “Obama tends to be very cautious on these things. He operates behind the scenes as we all know, but it’s very rare for him to step up in a controversy like this and try to lay down the law,” Schweizer said. “So, it indicates to me that they [Democrats] are frankly concerned that there actually is fire behind the smoke.”
Eggers noted separately that there are unresolved congressional disclosure questions involving Omar’s finances, including fluctuations in her net worth and a winery owned by her husband, which could raise House ethics issues apart from the immigration matter.
Slotkin’s Comments Draw Scrutiny
The immigration case comes amid a separate controversy involving Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who drew attention over the weekend for remarks in an interview with Vox discouraging young people from taking jobs in the Trump administration.
“I want them to be like, ‘Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want. So let me avoid participating in that,'” Slotkin said.
President Trump responded by calling Slotkin a “lowlife.”
Schweizer characterized her remarks as an attempt to intimidate people out of working for a political opponent’s administration. “This is political targeting, because [Slotkin] is preemptively saying, ‘I want to deter you (her words) from going and working for certain political figures. And I’m going to do that by threatening you with legal action,'” he said. “Maybe I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen anybody on the political left denounce what she said.”
Schweizer said he is not arguing that only one party engages in this kind of behavior. “I’m not saying there aren’t instances where Republicans have targeted Democrats, or that there are instances where Democrats have legitimately raised questions about Republicans,” he said. “We need to have those checks and balances built into our system.”
The two cases, he argued, raise a broader question about distinguishing genuine investigations from political intimidation. He pointed to a recent Fox News survey finding 88 percent of Americans are concerned about corruption in government, which he said was the highest level he has seen. “We should be adult enough in this country to be able to parse out legitimate inquiries and investigations as opposed to just trying to throw the book at somebody and hoping you’re going to hit them,” Schweizer said.
