"🚨 DEPORTATION SHOCKER: THE HAMMER DROPS AS ILHAN OMAR FACES REMOVAL FROM THE COUNTRY!"
A newly reported assessment of the federal investigation involving Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar suggests the greatest potential threat to her citizenship may have little to do with the allegation that she married her brother.
Current and former immigration officials told the New York Post that investigators would have stronger legal grounds to examine the circumstances surrounding Omar’s acquisition of American citizenship and the information supplied by her father.
White House border czar Tom Homan recently confirmed that Homeland Security Investigations is conducting a criminal investigation involving Omar, although neither he nor the Department of Homeland Security has publicly identified its precise scope.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin separately said investigators were examining Omar’s broader family immigration history and predicted that “something’s going to happen,” but officials have announced no charges or formal findings.
Omar has repeatedly denied allegations that Ahmed Elmi, the British national she legally married in 2009, was her brother or that their marriage was arranged to obtain immigration benefits.
The allegation has circulated for years among political opponents and some members of Minnesota’s Somali community, but it has never been established through a criminal conviction, civil judgment or publicly released government finding.
One former immigration lawyer told the Post that even if the marriage allegation were proven, it would not automatically provide legal grounds to deport Omar because she was already an American citizen.
The attorney also argued that the ordinary limitations period would create a major obstacle to prosecuting alleged marriage fraud stemming from a relationship that legally ended with the couple’s divorce in 2017.
Anonymous sources instead pointed to Omar’s citizenship history, including her reported acquisition of citizenship through her father, Nur Said Mohamed, when she was a teenager in 2000.
Omar has said she arrived in the United States as a refugee after her family fled Somalia and became an American citizen at age 17 through her naturalized father.
That timeline matters because the citizenship law governing children at the time generally required the relevant conditions to be satisfied before the child reached 18, along with additional requirements involving parental citizenship, custody and permanent residence.
Some of Omar’s critics have disputed her reported October 1982 birth date and alleged that she was already 18 when she acquired citizenship, but those claims have not been publicly proven.
The Post cited archived versions of a Minnesota legislative biography that reportedly listed Omar’s birth year as 1981 before it was changed to 1982.
Omar has said original records from Somalia were destroyed during the country’s civil war, and congressional records currently identify her birth date as October 4, 1982.
The sources also raised questions about whether Omar’s father accurately described his background when completing immigration and citizenship paperwork after bringing the family to the United States.
Nur Said, who died in 2020, was publicly described as an educator, while Somali reports and a former Somali prime minister identified him as a former Somali National Army colonel.
His previous military service would not independently prove immigration fraud, and the government would need evidence that a material fact was knowingly concealed or misrepresented during the immigration process.
One former official told the Post that investigators could also seek DNA testing from Omar and Elmi, although neither would be legally obligated to provide a sample voluntarily.
Such testing could potentially address whether the two were biologically related, but it would not by itself establish the purpose of their marriage or prove that either person committed immigration fraud.
Elmi and Omar did not respond to the Post’s requests for comment, while Omar’s representatives have previously characterized the accusations surrounding her marriage and citizenship as false, offensive and politically motivated, The New York Post reported.
Any attempt to revoke Omar’s citizenship would require a formal denaturalization case supported by admissible evidence, not merely anonymous claims, unresolved suspicions or statements from administration officials.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
