The New York Times’ editorial board has found a dangerous, “authoritarian” threat to the republic: investigating a politician. Readers may remember a different approach The Times’ editorial board took when the politician was Donald Trump.
“Trump Is Turning to an Old Tool of Authoritarian Repression,” headlined an editorial board op-ed Friday, warning in the article’s opening line that “[t]he revocation of a political opponent’s citizenship has long been a tool of authoritarian repression.”
The story comes as Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar is under federal investigation for alleged immigration fraud. According to The New York Post, Omar’s legal name is “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi,” yet she used the name Ilhan Omar on passports and other official documents. Further, the congresswoman could not definitely state whether she married her brother in a recent interview, whom she is alleged to have married illegally to get a green card.
This investigation into whether Omar illegally obtained U.S. citizenship, the board writes, “should disturb all Americans, regardless of whether they agree with Ms. Omar’ political views.”
“The investigation of her is a chilling example of the federal government using its immense power to silence a critic,” the board intones. “It is an affront to free speech, the rule of law and American ideals.”
This line of argument would grant immunity for any crime for any person who prominently criticizes the government. If it’s an “affront to free speech” to prosecute people based on factual evidence of lawbreaking, criticizing the government becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card.
We didn’t see The New York Times editorial board apply this reasoning to any critic of Joe Biden’s regime, such as lockdown and Covid shot dissenters. The Times said nothing about “authoritarian repression” when Biden imposed a mass censorship regime on the nation to silence its critics. It’s clear that, to the Times, words like “free speech” and “authoritarianism” have no fixed meaning but are wielded solely as emotional button-pushing sticks to suppress the left’s political enemies. What’s more “authoritarian” than that?
Notably, the editorial board also acknowledges it has no idea whether the allegations “have merit”: “Mr. Trump’s allies have claimed, among other things, that Ms. Omar’s father misrepresented her age during her naturalization process 26 years ago by saying she was 17 — and thus still a child — rather than 18. We do not pretend to know whether the allegations have merit. Yet as tempting as it may be to focus on them, they are not the main issue.”
Obviously whether the allegations have merit is key to determining whether the investigation is political or justly targeting possible illegal activity. The Times, however, instead pretends trying to discern the truth is a distraction from the conclusion they reached without caring about the facts — that applying the law equally, irrespective of title or fame, is an “unjust” prosecution.
When Trump faced sprawling investigations and prosecutions in 2023, however, The New York Times editorial board supported them, insisting no one is above the law, including politicians. “Even Donald Trump Should Be Held Accountable,” the same editorial board wrote in March 2023, as Trump faced bankruptcy and up to 110 years in prison on politicized charges.
“Donald Trump spent years as a candidate, in office and out of office, ignoring democratic and legal norms and precedents, trying to bend the Justice Department and the judiciary to his whims and behaving as if rules didn’t apply to him,” the board wrote then. “As the news of the indictment shows, they do.”
The Times’ editorial board proclaimed Trump’s indictment was evidence that the justice system was working since Trump thought the “rules didn’t apply to him.”
“A pattern of disregard for the law often leads to a criminal indictment, and that is the outcome Mr. Trump now faces,” the board intoned.
“A healthy respect for the legal system also requires Americans to set aside their politics when forming judgments on these cases,” the board continued. “The cost of failing to seek justice against a leader who may have committed these crimes would be higher still.”
Elmi is a Democrat instead of a Republican. Apparently to the Times’ editorial board, that alone should put her above the law.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2