.
.
WASHINGTON, D.C. —
The political landscape in Minnesota and across the nation has been rocked yet again by renewed allegations against Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) regarding claims of immigration fraud. The controversy, which has simmered for over five years, surged back into the headlines this week after Tom Homan, former Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), announced on Newsmax that he and federal investigators are actively reviewing Omar’s immigration records. The focus: the persistent accusation that Omar married her brother to facilitate his entry into the United States—a charge she has consistently denied.
The story first emerged in right-wing media circles in 2019, quickly gaining traction among conservative commentators and political operatives. The claim was that Ilhan Omar, a Somali refugee who arrived in the U.S. as a child, had married her biological brother in order to help him obtain legal residency. The allegation was amplified by outlets such as the Daily Mail, Fox News, and conservative personalities like Tucker Carlson.
Despite repeated denials from Omar and a lack of conclusive public evidence, the story has never been fully refuted in the eyes of its critics. As one commentator put it, “It’s a 5-year-old story that’s never been successfully refuted.” The persistence of the rumor has made it a recurring flashpoint in debates about immigration, refugee policy, and political integrity.
The controversy reignited this week when Tom Homan appeared on Newsmax to discuss the situation in Minnesota. Homan, a vocal supporter of stricter immigration enforcement, claimed that he had been advised by a fraud investigator about “immigration fraud involved” in Omar’s case. He stated that the statute of limitations became an issue during the Biden administration, but that now—under President Trump’s renewed focus on immigration enforcement—the files were being pulled for review.
Homan suggested that previous investigations may have been brushed aside due to political considerations, implying that the Biden administration’s Department of Justice had little interest in pursuing the case. With Trump back in office, Homan asserted, “We’re going to look at all of them… those here illegally, those under a visa or some sort of immigration process who are criminals, national security threats, or who weren’t properly vetted.”
He went further, referencing claims from South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem that nearly 50% of visas in the Somali community in Minnesota are fraudulent—a statistic that, if accurate, would have profound implications for immigration policy and enforcement.
The renewed focus on Omar comes at a time when Minnesota is already grappling with multiple fraud scandals. Recent investigations have uncovered over $1 billion in stolen taxpayer funds, including the high-profile Feeding Our Future case, which saw nearly $300 million embezzled from a nonprofit meant to feed children during the pandemic. The vast majority of those charged in these cases have been of Somali descent, further fueling scrutiny of the community and its political representatives.
Some commentators have speculated that Omar’s increased media appearances—on CNN, CBS’s Face the Nation, and other outlets—are attempts to “run cover” and respond to the allegations before they spiral further out of control.
The core allegation against Omar is that she married her brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, in 2009 to help him immigrate to the United States. Omar has denied the claim, stating that Elmi is not her biological sibling and that their marriage was a brief and legitimate union.
However, Republican operatives in Minnesota reportedly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on private investigators to prove a genetic connection. According to New York Post columnist Miranda Devine, these operatives collected DNA samples from cigarette butts and drinking straws used by Omar and Elmi, sending them to a laboratory for analysis. Devine claims the results showed a genetic match consistent with siblings, though the findings have never been independently verified or published in peer-reviewed scientific literature.
The day before the results were set to be released, Anton Lazaro, a Republican donor involved in the investigation, was arrested on unrelated charges. Devine suggests that the FBI was aware of the evidence but declined to pursue the case, citing the statute of limitations.
The question of whether Omar could face legal consequences hinges on several factors. Immigration fraud is a deportable offense under U.S. law, but prosecution is subject to statutes of limitations and the availability of evidence. Homan has suggested that with the change in administration, investigators now have the authority to revisit the case and potentially seek revocation of citizenship if fraud is proven.
During a Newsmax interview, Homan was asked directly whether Omar’s citizenship could be revoked if investigators confirm the allegations. Homan replied, “I can’t discuss any investigation,” but acknowledged that the matter is being reviewed.
The renewed investigation has sparked intense debate across the political spectrum. Conservative commentators have expressed outrage, calling for accountability and suggesting that Omar’s case is emblematic of broader failures in the immigration system. “If this is proven to be true,” one host said, “it would be one of the wildest stories in American history.”
Supporters of Omar, meanwhile, have denounced the allegations as a smear campaign rooted in racism and Islamophobia. They argue that the persistent focus on Omar’s personal life and background reflects a broader effort to undermine progressive women of color in Congress.
President Donald Trump has played a central role in keeping the allegations in the spotlight. During his recent remarks in the Oval Office, Trump referenced the Daily Mail’s reporting and repeated the claim that Omar “married her brother.” Trump’s comments have been echoed by right-wing media and amplified by his supporters.
The timing of the renewed investigation—coinciding with Trump’s return to office and Republican control of key agencies—has fueled speculation that the case is being pursued for political reasons as much as legal ones.
The Omar controversy is unfolding against a backdrop of increasing polarization over immigration and refugee policy. Minnesota’s Somali community, the largest in the United States, has faced heightened scrutiny as a result of recent fraud scandals and the persistent allegations against Omar.
Critics argue that the focus on Omar and Somali immigrants risks fueling xenophobia and undermining legitimate efforts to address fraud and abuse. Supporters contend that accountability is necessary to maintain the integrity of the immigration system, but warn against collective punishment and scapegoating.
Despite years of speculation and investigation, no definitive public evidence has been presented to prove that Ilhan Omar committed immigration fraud by marrying her brother. Omar has repeatedly denied the allegations, and no legal charges have been filed against her.
The DNA evidence cited by Miranda Devine and others remains unverified, and the circumstances surrounding Anton Lazaro’s arrest have raised questions about the handling of the case. The FBI has reportedly declined to pursue the matter, citing the statute of limitations and lack of actionable evidence.
With Tom Homan and federal investigators now actively reviewing Omar’s immigration records, the case may be entering a new phase. Homan has promised a “deep dive” into the files, with the possibility of multiple deportations if fraud is uncovered.
The outcome of the investigation could have significant implications—not only for Omar, but for the broader debate over immigration, refugee policy, and political accountability.
If the allegations against Omar are proven true, the consequences could be seismic. As one commentator put it, “It’s going to cause mayhem in the Democratic Party.” Omar is a prominent member of the progressive “Squad” in Congress and a leading voice on immigration, refugee rights, and racial justice.
Her removal from office or revocation of citizenship would be unprecedented and likely to trigger a political firestorm. Progressive activists warn that such an outcome would embolden critics of immigration and refugee resettlement, while conservative commentators argue that it would signal a long-overdue reckoning with fraud and abuse.
The allegations against Ilhan Omar have persisted for half a decade, surviving denials, investigations, and changes in political leadership. The current investigation, led by Tom Homan and supported by President Trump, may finally bring resolution—or it may simply add another chapter to a saga that has become emblematic of America’s deep divisions.
As the investigation unfolds, the stakes are high—not only for Omar, but for the principles of justice, accountability, and fairness that underpin the American political system.
For now, the nation waits. Omar’s critics demand accountability, her supporters decry what they see as a politically motivated witch hunt, and investigators sift through years of records and rumors in search of the truth.
What is clear is that the controversy surrounding Ilhan Omar is far from over. Whether the investigation yields new evidence or simply reignites old debates, its outcome will shape not only the future of one congresswoman, but the ongoing struggle over immigration, identity, and democracy in America.
President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a trade agreement between the United States and the European Union on Sunday.
The declaration occurred only moments after the two spoke to the media, saying that the chances of reaching an agreement were around 50-50. Von der Leyen acknowledged that the discussions required significant effort, yet both leaders expressed satisfaction with the final outcome.
“We are agreeing that the tariff straight across for automobiles and everything else will be a straight-across tariff of 15%,” Trump said.
“So we have a tariff of 15%. We have the opening up of all of the European countries, which I think I could say were essentially closed. I mean, you weren’t exactly taking our orders. You weren’t exactly taking our agriculture,” he added, addressing von der Leyen.
Von der Leyen said Europe will also purchase $150 billion worth of U.S. energy as part of the deal, in addition to making $600 billion in other investments into the U.S.
Some of the topline details about the trade deal can be seen below:
— An agreement to open up trade at 0% tariff
— EU to buy up to $750 billion of US energy
— EU to purchase “vast amounts” of US auto
— Tariffs on automobiles reduced to 15%
The deal is so good for the United States that liberals in America and even those in Europe are admitting that Trump got exactly what he wanted.
Former Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland praised the significance of the deal and how it will “screw” Russia.
“Well, when I served as ambassador, we were trying desperately to get Europe to abandon Nord Stream 2 and buy energy from us. And, you know, back then, they were hooked on cheap Russian gas. They didn‘t think that Russia posed a threat to Europe. Look how a few years have changed things. So now they don‘t want to buy from Russia. They want to buy from the U.S.,” Sondland said.
“The E.U. knew they had to do something like this. They realized that now President Trump has the mandate to push it. He did not have the mandate in his first term because he was fighting a lot of impeachments and other things that didn‘t give him the, you know, the power to do what he‘s done now. So I think all the whining and complaining is for public consumption, but at the end of the day, we‘re very close to the E.U.. We do a lot of things together, both public and classified, and, you know, this is — whatever, you know, sore feelings there are over this negotiation are a small bump in the road and now we can move forward. I think this is a tremendous day for the United States. And I have to credit President Trump,” he added.
CNN’s Jeff Zeleny claimed that the European Union’s trade deal with the United States “is a message that it’s better to do so rather than face a trade war.”
“We do know that China, of course, is one of the countries that there have been an on again/off again trade war. There‘s been a truce since May, but that expires on August 12th. So the question tomorrow, when Treasury secretary Scott Bessent meets with his Chinese counterparts in Stockholm, will there be an extension to that truce or will there be going back to the on again/off again, tit-for-tat trade war between Washington and Beijing? That is very much an open question.” Zeleny said.
“But the deal today reached with the EU certainly sends a message out to all other countries who have not yet signed deals that perhaps it‘s better to try and do so, rather than to face the threat of what the Trump Administration is proposing,” Zeleny added.
MSNBC’s Elise Jordan took a more pathetic route and said she wished that the European Union would have played “cat and mouse a little bit” on the trade deal with Trump.
“Yeah, because it’s a moment when the EU could have played with him a little bit, you know, cat and mouse a little bit. They have more leverage than, you know, giving in this quickly,” Jordan whined.
We’re already seeing that Aftyn Behn — the Democrat nominee in Tennessee’s 7th District special election — is piling up political liabilities faster than she can spin them away.
First, there’s the damaging revelation that she openly said she hates Nashville — a city that, at least in part, sits inside the very district she’s trying to represent. Now she’s scrambling to backtrack, but the comments are on video, and voters can see the truth for themselves.
Then come the anti-police remarks. Behn previously spoke approvingly about people burning down police stations, and she openly pushed defunding the police. Even MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) pressed her on those extreme comments — and instead of clarifying or walking them back, she acted as though she had no obligation to answer. She dodged the question entirely.
Now an old video from April 2019 has resurfaced, and it’s not helping Aftyn Behn’s already disastrous image. In the clip, Behn and a small group of activists are seen protesting outside the office of Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R). They demanded a meeting and called for the resignation of GOP state Rep. David Byrd over long-ago sexual misconduct allegations.
The video depicts Behn trying to enter Lee’s office while officers struggle to pull her out as she cries out.
Now, let’s be clear: you never pull a stunt like that. Security officers are responsible for protecting the governor, and forcing a confrontation is guaranteed to end badly. But instead of exercising even a shred of judgment, Behn escalated it — screaming, refusing to leave, and then collapsing into tears after being carried out. Not exactly the steady temperament you’d want in Congress.
And it didn’t end there.
Just a month later, she delivered yet another insufferable performance — this time shrieking at Republican Speaker Glen Casada on the House floor during the 111th General Assembly. It was the same pattern: emotional meltdowns, no respect for the setting
“I’m here today on behalf of communities that you have silenced today in this legislative session,” Behn shouted. “You have been violent to our various communities this entire legislative session. You have stopped any accountability! You have been taken out! You have been violent and extreme towards people of color, towards women, towards minorities! [….]
“This is unacceptable behavior! You shouldn’t do this! This is the worst administration!”
Once again, law enforcement had to escort her out because she refused to behave like an adult.
This isn’t principled activism — it’s performative outrage. It’s the behavior of someone who confuses tantrums for political courage. And it’s exactly the kind of off-the-rails conduct we’ve seen far too often from the unhinged left. The last thing Congress needs is yet another Democrat who treats public office like a stage for emotional breakdowns.
Residents of the 7th district, please ensure you participate in the voting process by December 2nd, so we can avoid more humiliating actions from Democrats in the future:
And as an aside: Shame on you Democrat voters in the district who picked this lunatic over a sane candidate. She embodies all that is wrong with your party in 2025.
President Trump pointed to “pollsters” who say the government shutdown — combined with the fact that his name wasn’t on Tuesday’s ballot — were key reasons behind the Republican losses on Election Day.
“‘TRUMP WASN’T ON THE BALLOT, AND SHUTDOWN, WERE THE TWO REASONS THAT REPUBLICANS LOST ELECTIONS TONIGHT, according to Pollsters,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday night.
Republicans lost major races on Tuesday, though the vast majority of them were in deep blue states and districts.
In New York City, socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani defeated a rare bipartisan coalition that had rallied behind former Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) to win the mayor’s race.
Out west, California voters approved Proposition 50, effectively dismantling the state’s two-decade-old independent redistricting system. The measure clears the way for a new congressional map that could hand Democrats as many as five additional House seats in the 2026 midterm elections.
“It was not expected to be a victory. I don’t think it was good for Republicans. I’m not sure it was good for anybody, but we had an interesting evening, and we learned a lot,” Trump said at a Wednesday morning breakfast with GOP senators.
In New Jersey, a race that many expected to be close turned into a decisive win for Democrat Mikie Sherrill, who defeated Republican Jack Ciattarelli by a double-digit margin — 56.2% to 43.2% — with 95% of ballots counted as of Wednesday morning.
In Virginia, Democrat Abigail Spanberger also scored a commanding victory, defeating Republican Winsome Earle-Sears by more than 15 points, 57.5% to 42.3%, with 96% of votes tallied.
For comparison, former President Donald Trump lost both states in the previous year’s election — by 5.7 points in Virginia and 5.9 points in New Jersey,
House Republicans are exploring legal and constitutional strategies to block Mamdani from being sworn into office, citing the Constitution’s post–Civil War “insurrection clause.”
The effort, first reported by the New York Post, is being led in part by the New York Young Republican Club, which argues that Mamdani’s past statements calling to “resist ICE” and his ties to left-wing organizations could qualify as “giving aid or comfort to the enemies” of the United States — language drawn directly from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
That provision, enacted in 1868, bars from public office any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States, or who has provided “aid or comfort” to its enemies.
The clause was originally intended to prevent former Confederate officials from holding office but has recently re-emerged in political debates over ballot eligibility.
“There is a real and legitimate push to see the insurrectionist Zohran Mamdani either a) removed from the ballot or b) removed from office if he is to win on Tuesday,” said Stefano Forte, president of the New York Young Republican Club.
Several House Republicans are said to be reviewing whether the clause could be enforced through new legislation or congressional action following the election.
The idea mirrors the legal arguments used in Colorado last year to try to disqualify Trump from the state’s ballot — a move the Supreme Court ultimately overturned, ruling that Congress, not individual states, has the constitutional authority to enforce Section 3.
The Court’s decision has emboldened some GOP lawmakers who believe the ruling effectively places responsibility for such enforcement in the hands of Congress, where Republicans currently hold a narrow 219–213 majority in the House.
According to two congressional aides, Republican leaders may consider holding a post-election vote to declare Mamdani ineligible for office under the clause. Such a measure would face significant procedural and legal hurdles, including a likely filibuster in the Democrat-controlled Senate and near-certain court challenges.