The Trump administration’s recent attempt to investigate Rep. Ilhan Omar may aim to revoke her citizenship due to claims of immigration fraud. However, a former federal prosecutor suggests that the chances of a successful criminal case are slim.
Michael Wildes, an immigration attorney, shared with Fox News Digital that building a case against Omar presents a significant challenge, especially after Tom Homan, the White House border czar, confirmed a “criminal” investigation led by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This investigation arises from accusations that Omar married her brother to secure her U.S. citizenship, a claim she has consistently denied.
The tension between President Trump and Omar dates back to her election in his first term, where she quickly became a prominent critic. Trump has often suggested that she should be sent back to Somalia due to the alleged fraud.
The administration is intensifying its attempts to denaturalize and deport those accused of immigration violations. Earlier this year, Vice President JD Vance indicated that the Justice Department is examining Omar for potential fraud and immigration breaches.
However, significant questions linger regarding the requirements for a potential case against the Somali-born congresswoman. Wildes stated that the government would need to demonstrate that Omar knowingly entered her marriage — to someone controversially believed to be her brother — with the explicit intent to skirt U.S. immigration laws.
To successfully prove marriage fraud, the government would have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the marriage was primarily aimed at evading immigration regulations. Wildes emphasized that even if Omar and her husband later decided to exploit their marriage for immigration benefits, it wouldn’t legally constitute fraud.
If the government could prove fraud, Omar could face substantial penalties, including up to five years in prison and fines reaching $250,000. However, the lengthy time since her marriage in 2009 raises concerns over statutes of limitation that might impede prosecution. Still, there remains a process for denaturalization, which Homan termed a “very serious process” during discussions about the investigation.
Wildes noted the complexities involved: “Do they have the factual basis, and is it the right course of action?” He raised concerns about whether mistakes might be perceived as intent and how extreme it would be to denaturalize someone.
For Omar to lose her citizenship, it would need to be linked to allegations of misrepresenting facts during her 2000 citizenship process. Although Omar states she received automatic citizenship as a minor when her father naturalized, debates about her age at that time arose following accusations of inconsistencies in publicly available records. If it were proven she was older, it could lead to reevaluation of her citizenship status.
Wildes highlighted that each denaturalization case is considered uniquely, focusing on whether there was an intentional deception or mere mistakes during the application process. He indicated that whether the alleged misrepresentations are factual or conjectural will significantly impact any prosecution.
While Homan confirmed an investigation, he did not disclose whether there is concrete evidence that Omar committed either marriage or immigration fraud. Omar stated she hasn’t been in contact with DHS regarding any investigation, expressing confidence that the ongoing scrutiny is politically motivated.
In response to Omar’s assertion of being unaware of the investigation, Wildes conveyed that this is not atypical and does not contradict Homan’s confirmation of the inquiry. He emphasized the importance of the government carefully managing its investigation without revealing its strategy prematurely.
Lastly, Wildes mentioned his skepticism about the validity of any prosecution, stating, “This is a member of Congress… It may not align with your politics, but we need to ensure that prosecutions are warranted and not conducted frivolously.”
