"🚨 FEDERAL SHOCKER! — AGENTS SEARCH REP. OMAR'S HOME IN CRIMINAL PROBE AS SHE VOWS NOT TO 'BE SILENCED'!"
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal agents on Monday searched the home of Democratic U.S. Rep. a startling escalation in a criminal investigation that brings renewed focus to the frequent target of Trump administration derision in the final weeks of
The search of the Minnesota congresswoman's home so close to next month's midterm contests that will determine control of the House and the Senate was swiftly condemned by top Democrats in Congress, who raised questions about the timing given longstanding Justice Department protocol to avoid overt investigative steps involving political candidates in the direct run-up to an election. Omar, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, said she was being targeted as one of the Republican's "political enemies."
The scope of the investigation was unclear, though Trump and officials in his administration have repeatedly referred in recent months to the existence of an inquiry into Omar, a Somali-born Democrat whose to the U.S. and have drawn scrutiny from the White House and other Republicans.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin last month cited an "ongoing investigation" that he suggested was examining potential fraud in her family's immigration paperwork. "Something's going to happen," he said in a potential foreshadowing of the a statement on X on Monday, Omar called the search an "attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement."
"For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation," she said. "I will not be silenced."
At a political rally in Ohio later Monday, Trump attacked Omar's Somali origins, saying, "She's telling us about the Constitution, and she comes from one of the worst countries anywhere on the planet." The crowd responded by shouting, "Deport."
Though the Republican focus on Omar's background dates back years, the search notably took place three weeks before the November midterms, in which Omar is seeking reelection. The Justice Department has historically sought to avoid public investigative actions involving a candidate within 60 days of a primary or general election. Top Democrats seized on the timing as the latest instance in what they said was the "continued corrupt weaponization" against Trump's perceived adversaries.
"For years, Donald Trump and far-right extremists have relentlessly targeted Congresswoman Omar with vile personal attacks and baseless accusations," said a joint statement from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other top congressional Democrats. "Now, less than 30 days until the midterm election, his violent mass deportation machine has descended upon the home of a duly elected Member of Congress and her family."
Trump says he had "nothing to do" with search
The search was carried out by agents with Homeland Security Investigations, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
A DHS spokesperson referred questions to the Justice Department, which said in a statement that HSI agents had executed a judicially authorized search warrant in the Washington, D.C., area related to an ongoing federal criminal investigation but provided no other details.
The street around Omar's home was blocked off Monday morning as some HSI agents removed boxes labeled "Seized Property Evidence."
The operation came just days after Trump referred pejoratively to Omar at a rally in Tennessee as coming from a country of "crime and squalor" and suggested that Vice President JD Vance "and our people" were investigating her. Hours after the search, Trump told reporters he had "nothing to do" with it and it's "really up to the DOJ."
Trump suggested he didn't know what was happening with the investigation even as he seemed to suggest that Omar was engaged in suspect behavior.
Vance has in the past accused Omar of committing immigration fraud, an allegation she has denied, and has said the administration was looking for pathways to investigate her.
Omar has long been a target for Republicans
Omar, who was first elected to the House in 2018, represents Minnesota's 5th District, including Minneapolis. She is part of of progressive lawmakers who are a vibrant political force on the left wing of Congress but have also endured repeated attacks from Trump, dating back to his first term. She was one of the first two Muslim-American women in the House and the first African refugee to be elected to Congress.When Republicans swept control of the House in 2023, they Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, citing her anti-Israel remarks.
In January, Trump lashed out at Omar during hours before an assailant sprayed the congresswoman during her own town hall meeting in Minneapolis with a substance that turned out to be vinegar. The attacker to 14 months in prison.
Omar has allegations about her marriage and immigration status raised by conservative critics, even before she joined Congress.
According to her House biography, Omar has said she and her family fled Somalia's civil war when she was 8: "The family spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya before coming to the United States in 1990s. In 1997, she moved to Minneapolis with her family."
Conservative online sites have alleged that Omar married a brother to commit immigration fraud. Omar has broadly denied the allegations as and called the insinuation "absurd and offensive."
"It certainly seems like something fishy is there, but everybody's entitled to equal justice under the laws," Vance told reporters in May. "So we're going to investigate it. We're going to take a look at it. If we think there's a crime, we're going to prosecute that crime. And that's something the Department of Justice is looking at right now."
In an interview last March with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson, Vance said without offering evidence that "we actually think that Ilhan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America." Omar's office at the time dismissed Vance's claims as fabricated and defamatory.
Last month, when the podcaster Johnson reminded Mullin about Vance's comments on Omar and asked whether anything would happen from that investigation, the Homeland Security secretary responded, "Something's going to happen."
He cited an "ongoing investigation" that he suggested was examining potential fraud in the family's immigration paperwork.
"If we actually move a case forward, it's not a political case. It's actually a case because they did things wrong," Mullin said. "If you decided to break the law or lie on the information that you gave to the United States, to be able to come into the United States ... there's no expiration to that."
___
Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro, Michelle L. Price and River Zhang in Washington, Kathy McCormack in Concord, N.H., Mike Catalini in Morrisville, Pa., and Meg Kinnard in Columbia, S.C., contributed.
"🚨 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.
