Homan Says Omar Could Lose Citizenship If Immigration Fraud Is Proven
The warning has moved beyond unnamed sources and into a public statement from one of the administration’s top immigration officials.
He described a possible next step that would carry consequences far beyond a criminal investigation.
Border Czar Tom Homan says Rep. Ilhan Omar could lose her citizenship if investigators establish fraud in obtaining it.
Appearing on Fox News over the weekend, Homan said denaturalization remained a possibility, dependent on what the evidence establishes.
“If you lie during the naturalization process, there is a process to denaturalize somebody,” he said.
Homan said he had been told investigators had a strong case, while declining to get ahead of their work.
He added that “we’ll let the evidence lead where it leads.”
His comments publicly acknowledged a potential outcome that sources had previously described: revoking the Minnesota Democrat’s citizenship.
They did not announce a court ruling, a completed denaturalization proceeding, or an order requiring her departure.
Omar remains a U.S. citizen and has denied wrongdoing.
The distinction is essential because Homan described what could happen, rather than what has already happened.
For a sitting member of Congress, even that conditional warning represents an extraordinary escalation in the public confrontation.
The administration’s position is that congressional office should provide no protection from otherwise applicable immigration laws.
Omar’s position is that the investigation weaponizes federal authority against a political opponent.
The underlying inquiry includes questions about information submitted during her family’s immigration and citizenship proceedings.
Reuters reported that investigators were examining whether Omar or relatives provided false information in those records.
A source described conspiracy, false statements, and immigration fraud as potential offenses listed in the search warrant.
Omar arrived in the United States with her family in 1995 and has said she acquired citizenship in 2000.
She has described obtaining citizenship through her father before turning 18.
Questions about her birth year have consequently become part of the public controversy.
Truthout reported that Omar maintains a change in her recorded birth year corrected an earlier error.
It also noted that an earlier federal review did not produce sufficient evidence to proceed.
The relevant question now is what additional evidence investigators possess and whether it changes that assessment.
A separate Monday report from The New York Post described DNA as part of the developing case.
Sources told the newspaper investigators had obtained genetic material alongside government records and information supplied by whistleblowers.
One source connected the DNA to the allegation that Omar’s former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, is her biological brother.
Omar has repeatedly denied that allegation.
The newspaper did not publish laboratory findings establishing that relationship.
Its sources said the October 12 home search and other evidence could support bringing an immigration conspiracy case.
The report did not establish that a grand jury had returned charges.
Nor does a disputed marriage allegation automatically resolve the separate question of how Omar obtained citizenship.
Any effort to revoke citizenship would require a legal basis connecting the evidence to the applicable citizenship requirements.
The Justice Department identifies illegal procurement and material concealment or willful misrepresentation as grounds for revoking naturalization.
Those standards require more than a political official expressing confidence in an investigation.
They require the government to establish its case through the appropriate legal process.
That process also provides an opportunity to challenge the evidence and the government’s interpretation of the facts.
Meanwhile, Omar’s attorneys have challenged how investigators conducted the search of her Washington residence.
The Associated Press reported that they demanded the return of seized property and preservation of recordings from the operation.
They alleged authorities failed to follow judicial instructions and characterized the investigation as politically motivated.
May you like
The Justice Department rejected those accusations and said its personnel complied with court orders and legal obligations, Fox News reported.
Those competing accounts make judicial oversight consequential for both the investigation and the defense.
