"🚨 FEDERAL SHOCKER! — DHS AGENTS SEARCH ILHAN OMAR'S DC HOME IN A PRE-DAWN RAID!"
The Trump administration is increasing pressure on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) over allegations she may have lied on her immigration paperwork.
Federal immigration investigators raided the Washington, D.C.-area home of Omar early Monday morning as part of an ongoing criminal investigation involving the Minnesota congresswoman’s immigration records.
Homeland Security Investigations agents executed a search warrant at the residence, according to a source familiar with the investigation who spoke to
The investigation reportedly centers on immigration paperwork completed by Omar’s late father when she was a child.
The Justice Department confirmed that federal investigators carried out a court-authorized search but declined to disclose details about the evidence they sought.
“Today in the Washington, D.C., area, Homeland Security Investigations executed a judicially authorized search warrant secured by the Department of Justice,” a DOJ spokesperson told Fox News Digital. “This enforcement action is part of an ongoing federal investigation.”
The development represents a significant escalation of an investigation that Trump administration officials publicly acknowledged last month.
The search follows statements from White House border czar Tom Homan, who confirmed in September that federal authorities were investigating allegations involving Omar.
During an appearance on Fox News, Homan acknowledged that Homeland Security Investigations was conducting a criminal investigation but declined to discuss the evidence.
“I know things are going on, but I can’t give specifics of what’s happening,” Homan said.
He emphasized that elected officials are subject to the same immigration laws as other Americans.
“If someone committed an immigration violation, if someone committed marriage fraud or anything like that, regardless if they’re a congressman or not, no one’s above the law,” Homan said.
He added that investigators would determine whether the allegations warranted further action. Homan did not publicly identify specific criminal charges being considered against Omar.
His comments followed renewed scrutiny of longstanding allegations concerning the congresswoman’s immigration and marriage history.
Omar responded to the September disclosures by saying federal authorities had not contacted her about any criminal investigation.
Asked by Fox News Digital whether the Department of Homeland Security had notified her of an investigation, the congresswoman answered that it had not. She also dismissed allegations about her immigration history as politically motivated attacks.
Omar has repeatedly denied accusations that she entered into a fraudulent marriage to facilitate immigration benefits.
Those allegations have circulated for years. The congresswoman has characterized the accusations as false and discriminatory.
As of the initial Monday morning report, Omar’s office had not publicly issued a detailed response to the search of her residence.
The Justice Department also had not announced criminal charges against the congresswoman.
According to Fox News Digital, the latest investigation concerns immigration documents submitted when Omar was a child.
Omar was born in Somalia in 1982 and fled the country with her family during its civil war.
Her family spent several years in a refugee camp in Kenya before relocating to the United States in the 1990s. She subsequently became a naturalized American citizen.
The reported focus on documents prepared by her father raises questions about what information investigators are examining and whether authorities believe any statements were inaccurate.
However, the Justice Department has not publicly identified a particular document containing allegedly false information.
It also remains unclear whether investigators suspect Omar personally committed wrongdoing or are reviewing actions taken by other individuals during her family’s immigration process.
That distinction could prove important because the paperwork was reportedly completed when she was a minor.
Federal immigration fraud cases generally require prosecutors to establish specific legal elements, including the nature of any alleged misrepresentation and its significance to the immigration process.
The investigation comes as President Donald Trump has intensified efforts to identify alleged immigration and naturalization fraud.
Federal officials have emphasized investigations involving false statements on immigration applications, fraudulent marriages, and other alleged violations of federal immigration law.
"🚨 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.
