White House border czar Tom Homan went on the record confirming that the Department of Homeland Security is running what he called an “ongoing criminal investigation” involving Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., over long-standing allegations that she committed immigration fraud by marrying a man critics allege is her brother.
Homan made the disclosure during an appearance on Fox News’s “The Sunday Briefing,” where he stopped short of offering specifics but left no ambiguity about the existence of the probe. The confirmation marks the most direct public acknowledgment yet from a senior administration official that federal investigators are actively pursuing the matter, not just reviewing it, not just “looking into” it, but treating it as a criminal case.
Omar has long denied the allegation. In December she dismissed the claims as “bigoted lies” on social media and said President Trump was obsessed with her. Fox News Digital reached out to her office for comment. No response was reported.
Homan’s on-air remarks were carefully measured but pointed. Asked directly whether he was confirming an investigation involving Omar, he told Fox News:
“I’m confirming that ICE is, yeah, look, I said months ago that there’s something that’s been reported and needs to be looked at.”
He then broadened the frame beyond any single member of Congress:
“If someone committed an immigration violation, if someone committed marriage fraud or anything like that, regardless if they’re a congressman or not, no one’s above the law. So, I’ll leave it at that. We’ll let HSI, Homeland Security Investigations, continue the investigation.”
That phrase, “regardless if they’re a congressman or not”, is doing a lot of work. It signals that the administration views Omar’s seat in Congress as irrelevant to the question of whether she broke the law. Whether you agree with the investigation or not, the principle is straightforward: elected office does not confer immunity from criminal scrutiny.
Homan also addressed denaturalization, the legal process by which a naturalized citizen can lose that status if the government proves the citizenship was obtained through fraud. He described it as a tool with a long track record.
“If someone lies through that process to becoming a citizen, and we can prove they, in fact, lied or misrepresented themselves, [we can absolutely denaturalize them]. We’ve done it before many times over the last 40 years I’ve been around, so it’s a process.”
No denaturalization proceedings against Omar have been confirmed. But the fact that the border czar raised the subject unprompted suggests the administration is at least thinking about the full range of remedies available if the investigation produces results.
Homan is not the only senior official who has spoken publicly. DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin went further in a separate podcast appearance, stating flatly that the government believes Omar married her brother to bring him to the United States.
“Something’s going to happen…. We know that she married her brother to try to bring him to the United States. We know he now lives in London.”
Mullin added that the investigation could extend beyond the marriage question itself:
“There may be more to this, the whole family migration and possibly some illegal activity for them to come to the United States to begin with…. If we can prove it, that you shouldn’t have been here in the first place, we will deport you.”
Vice President JD Vance has been even more direct. In a March podcast interview with conservative commentator Benny Johnson, Vance said he had spoken with White House immigration advisor Stephen Miller about potential legal action against Omar and offered a blunt assessment.
“We think Ilhan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America.”
By May, Vance said the Justice Department was looking into whether Omar committed immigration fraud. He softened the rhetoric slightly, noting that “everybody’s entitled to equal justice under the law,” but the trajectory of his public statements has been consistently pointed.
The Washington Examiner reported that President Trump announced the DOJ is investigating Omar, linking the probe in part to widespread fraud in Minnesota health services programs in which most defendants have been of Somali descent. Trump has sought to connect Omar to that broader scandal.
The legal exposure Omar could face, if the allegations are substantiated, is not trivial. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, outlined three potential criminal statutes in play: federal marriage fraud, which carries up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and deportation; Minnesota state incest law, punishable by up to ten years in jail; and tax fraud, which could bring up to a $100,000 fine and three years in prison.
That is a significant legal gauntlet, and it does not even account for the denaturalization process Homan described.
There is, however, a complication. Homan acknowledged that the statute of limitations could present a problem for prosecuting Omar on some or all of the potential violations. The alleged marriage took place in 2009, Just The News reported, and no DNA evidence has publicly confirmed that the man she married, Ahmed Elmi, is her sibling. The claim has not been proven in public records.
That distinction matters. An investigation is not a conviction. Allegations are not proof. But the fact that multiple cabinet-level officials and the vice president are speaking publicly about a criminal probe into a sitting member of Congress is itself extraordinary, and it raises fair questions about why, if the evidence is as strong as the administration suggests, formal charges have not yet materialized.
The Omar investigation does not exist in a vacuum. DHS is conducting a broader review of visa fraud within Minnesota’s Somali community, with the department claiming that 50 percent of visas in the state are fraudulent. That is a staggering figure, and if accurate, it suggests a systemic failure of immigration enforcement that long predates the current administration.
The Trump administration has deployed federal strike forces to address fraud in other states as well, signaling that immigration and benefits fraud are enforcement priorities across the board, not just when a high-profile congresswoman is involved.
Homan’s own comments on “The Sunday Briefing” reinforced that broader posture. He framed the Omar matter not as a political vendetta but as one case within a larger enforcement mandate. Whether critics accept that framing is another question entirely.
Omar herself has offered little beyond dismissal. In December, she called the allegations “bigoted lies” on social media. When confronted directly by Fox News Digital about whether investigators would find anything, she responded: “Absolutely not.”
Her office did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on Homan’s latest statements. That silence is notable. A sitting member of Congress facing a publicly confirmed criminal investigation by the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and Homeland Security Investigations would ordinarily have every incentive to mount a vigorous public defense, or at least issue a denial through counsel.
Instead, the public record shows a one-word answer and a social media post. That is Omar’s prerogative. But it does not inspire confidence that a substantive rebuttal is forthcoming.
The DHS has shown a willingness to act on internal accountability matters under this administration. Whether that same institutional energy translates into a formal legal action against a sitting congresswoman remains the central open question.
Several critical questions remain unanswered. Has a grand jury been convened? Has any court taken formal action? Are the DHS and DOJ investigations the same probe or parallel efforts? What specific evidence, if any, has HSI developed? And can the government overcome the statute-of-limitations hurdle that Homan himself acknowledged?
None of these questions have public answers yet. The administration has been long on rhetoric and short on visible legal action. That gap will need to close if the investigation is to amount to more than a political pressure campaign.
Meanwhile, House Democrats are already mapping out their own investigative agenda should they regain the majority, which means the political backdrop for any prosecution of Omar would be intensely charged regardless of the merits.
The administration’s broader immigration enforcement posture has already drawn legal challenges on multiple fronts. Adding a criminal case against a sitting Democratic congresswoman would raise the stakes considerably, and would test whether the principle Homan articulated on air actually holds.
“No one’s above the law,” he said. That is exactly the right standard. Now the administration needs to either prove the case or stop previewing it on cable television. The American public deserves one or the other, not an indefinite middle ground where allegations float without resolution and accountability stays permanently on the horizon.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.