Tom Homan says a strong federal case could strip Ilhan Omar of citizenship and deport her if immigration fraud holds, as Obama brands the probe political intimidation.
Federal agents searched Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Washington, D.C., home last Monday and seized her cellphone. The search focused on allegations tied to her family’s immigration paperwork. Omar has not been charged and denies any wrongdoing.
White House border czar Tom Homan went further on Saturday. In a Fox News interview, he said denaturalization and deportation remain on the table if the evidence shows immigration fraud. He said he has already been told the case is strong.
Homan framed the matter as equal treatment under the law, not a special carve-out for a member of Congress. Homan told Fox News the process exists for a reason.
"Of course. We've done it before, and it is a long, tedious process, but it's been done before."
He added that he has worked those cases himself. "I've been involved with those investigations before, and certainly if the evidence points that way, yes, it could happen." He also said, "I've been told we have a strong case."
Homan stressed deterrence and basic accountability. "We'll let the evidence see where it leads. She'll be held to the same standard you and I are held. If she violated law then she'd be held accountable." He called deterrence "a part of what this administration is doing." When pressed on other possible offenses, he replied, "I won't go there."
Homeland Security Investigations officers were seen at the entrance last Monday. Officers carried boxes from the residence after a judge signed multiple search warrants. The cellphone seizure sat at the center of the operation, which federal agents tied to an immigration fraud raid still underway.
Omar, a Somali-born Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota who is 44, has rejected the allegations. Her legal team demanded the immediate return of seized property and insisted there is "no legitimate basis for any suggestion that she has violated any law concerning her citizenship status."
The lawyers went further in a letter. They called the inquiry "vindictive, retributive, and politically motivated" and claimed it "violates Representative Omar's constitutional rights and threatens the separation of powers." Justice Department spokesperson Emily Covington rejected that account. She said the letter was "riddled with false allegations and inaccuracies" and added, "Our attorneys and law enforcement partners complied with all court orders and legal obligations, as they always do."
Long-running claims that Omar married her brother to help with immigration have circulated among critics for years. She has repeatedly called those claims "absurd and offensive." No public evidence package has been released, and no charges have been filed.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin addressed the warrants on The Charlie Kirk Show. He said a judge signed them and that investigators expect to take the case to a grand jury. "We had a judge sign it, and we expect to be able to take the case to a grand jury."
Mullin rejected the charge that President Trump ordered a political hit. "We wouldn't move forward, and President Trump didn't want to move forward either, unless we knew that it couldn't be politically driven." He also floated a broader possibility: if paperwork fraud formed a coordinated scheme to bring others into the country, "Then that can be considered a RICO case, right?"
The same day as the home search, multiple court-authorized warrants were executed. That sequence matches earlier reporting on the federal search of Omar’s D.C. home over immigration paperwork questions.
Former President Barack Obama posted on X on Sunday and defended Omar. He cast the investigation as punishment for criticism of the president rather than a fraud review.
"It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can't selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say. But that's exactly what the Trump Administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota."
Obama continued: "Think about that. The full weight of the federal government is being brought down on a law-abiding elected official because she has dared to criticize the president." He said any administration willing to "engage in such transparent efforts to intimidate someone should outrage all Americans, regardless of how they feel about Congresswoman Omar's political views."
Obama also described the citizenship theory under review. He said Omar arrived in the United States at age 12 and automatically gained citizenship five years later when her father naturalized. Investigators, he said, are examining whether she had actually been 18 at the time. Daily Mail reporting placed that dispute at the center of the current probe.
Political allies quickly closed ranks after the search. Some of that reaction tracked the same defensive line seen when Bill Kristol rallied support for Omar in the days after the raid.
President Trump has kept distance from the charging call. He previously denied directing the investigation. On the substance of Omar herself, he offered a blunt personal view and then pointed to prosecutors.
"I think she's a terrible person, but that's really up to the DOJ."
That stance leaves the evidence, the warrants, and any grand-jury presentation with career prosecutors and investigators. Homan’s public comments put the citizenship question in plain view without declaring a final outcome.
Omar remains a sitting member of Congress and has not been accused in court. The seized phone and other property stay in dispute while her lawyers demand their return. The administration’s line is simpler: if someone lied to obtain citizenship, the same denaturalization tools used in other cases remain available.
Citizenship is not a press-release privilege. When paperwork, age claims, and naturalization records face a judge-signed warrant and a promised grand jury, the test is evidence, not volume of political noise. Minnesota already carries a long list of fraud fights, including the kind aired when candidates collided over state fraud scandals in recent debate coverage.
Voters expect one standard for immigration files, whether the name on the form is famous or not. If the proof holds, the law should run its course; if it does not, the case ends. Either way, the country gets a clearer answer than another round of partisan immunity claims.