Is Trump’s Investigation Into Ilhan Omar Legit? Let’s Consider the Evidence.

This story is adapted from the Slatest newsletter. You can sign up here to get it in your inbox every day.

In the Venn diagram of Donald Trump’s least favorite groups, there is perhaps nobody closer to the middle than Rep. Ilhan Omar. The lawmaker from Minnesota is a progressive, an outspoken critic of Trump, a woman, a Muslim, and an immigrant. Specifically, she’s Somali American, part of a group Trump has targeted virulently. (Among many examples, Trump last week posted on Truth Social that Minnesota should “fight back” against its Somali population.) Trump has repeatedly attacked Omar and suggested she belongs in neither Congress nor the country.

That made it all the more alarming when—three weeks before Election Day—federal agents entered the sitting lawmaker’s home as part of what the Justice Department called an “ongoing investigation.” Is this yet another example, even an escalation, of Trump’s efforts to use federal law enforcement to harass his political opponents? Or is there some legitimacy to this investigation? Let’s get into what we know and what we don’t.

What were federal agents looking for in Omar’s home?

Early Monday morning, agents from Homeland Security Investigations, part of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, surrounded Omar’s home and entered the premises, then left with boxes and other items. The Justice Department said only that the search was related to an ongoing investigation and that the department had obtained a warrant from a federal judge. But ICE’s involvement suggests the issue centers on potential violations of immigration law, as do past statements from multiple members of the administration, who’ve publicly accused Omar or her family of violating immigration law. In September, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said: “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,” Mullin said. “All of this we are investigating.” More specifically, CBS news reported Monday that the investigation is focused on Omar’s original immigration paperwork.

Is there any evidence that Omar’s citizenship is fraudulent?

Omar’s family was granted asylum in the United States in 1995, having spent years in Kenyan refugee camps after emigrating from Somalia due to the country’s civil war. Omar became a U.S. citizen in 2000, under a law that makes minors eligible for citizenship when their parents are naturalized. Omar’s age in 2000 is at the crux of one set of accusations about her citizenship. Omar’s biography lists her as being born on Oct. 4, 1982, but critics claim—without proof—that she was actually born earlier. Omar says she no longer has her birth certificate, and records with the Somali government are unsurprisingly unavailable, given the country’s decades of internal turmoil.

Didn’t the Justice Department also investigate Omar during Joe Biden’s presidency?

The New York Times reports that in 2024, the department looked at her finances, campaign spending, and “interactions with a foreign citizen.” The investigation stalled out without charges, and we know about it mostly because Trump publicized it in January during ICE’s violent escapades in Minneapolis.

So is Monday’s raid part of a political prosecution, or could it be a legitimate inquiry?

Taking the least generous position possible toward Omar is illustrative, so let’s suppose for a moment that the critics are correct and that her family gave false information while securing her asylum or citizenship. Omar was a child or preteen during the asylum process and a teenager during the citizenship process. It’s unlikely that, even if fraud occurred, she was the driving force behind any of it. If—and again, that’s far from proven—fraud occurred, it was more likely conducted by her father as he tried to ensure his daughter would not be sent back to the violence and chaos that had engulfed Somalia. Further, if that fraud occurred, it happened more than 25 years ago.

At some point, we may see the administration’s full case against Omar, which will give us more information to assess whether there’s any legitimate law enforcement going on here. But here’s what we know right now: The president has put the Justice Department under his personal control, promised to use it to attack his political enemies, and removed top officials who fail to completely acquiesce to his whims. He has made false claims about Omar, and now, decades after these alleged crimes but weeks before Election Day, his administration has staged a high-profile search of her home. On balance, this looks like an alarming escalation of Trump’s abuse of power, and the burden is on his administration to prove otherwise.

That was a bit bleak, but obsessing over it won’t change anything. Here are some ways to reset and reenergize, courtesy of my colleagues.

Some unironic astrology: To celebrate Slate’s 30^th birthday, Slate writer Heather Schwedel asked several astrologers to interpret the magazine’s birth chart. Apparently, the stars can provide a lot of insight into our publication’s essence—and future.

In praise of the secret supper club: By design, hidden restaurants tend to fly under the radar. But if you can get inside one, you’re in for a treat. Your meal might involve entering a whimsical Italian restaurant through a bathroom, or eating a 10-course menu of fine Korean food at a former underground barbershop. Noah Lederman sheds light on this unique culinary trend.

The end of articles about “the end of reading”: Countless pundits, teachers, and researchers have warned that we are in the middle of a literacy crisis. With yet another treatise on this topic having been published, Slate book critic Laura Miller declares that it’s time for the discourse to evolve.

Ten years of the “pussyhat”: One of the most memorable—and controversial—symbols of the resistance to Trump’s first term in office was a knitted pink hat made to look like cat ears. The pussyhat was intended as an outlet for feminist knitters to express their politics, but it soon became associated with “performative activism that is, at best, cringe, and at worst, intentionally exclusionary.” ICYMI host Kate Lindsay unravels the hat’s legacy.

Thanks all from us. Thanks for reading and have a great night. Ian will be back tomorrow.