White House border czar Tom Homan confirmed a criminal DHS investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar, yet a former federal prosecutor says proving marriage fraud for denaturalization still faces a very high legal bar.
Homan confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security is running a “criminal” investigation involving the Minnesota Democrat. He called denaturalization a “very serious process” and declined to say whether federal investigators already hold evidence of marriage or immigration fraud, or to detail the probe’s exact focus.
The confirmation lands amid longstanding claims that Omar married her brother to secure immigration benefits, claims she has repeatedly denied. Vice President JD Vance said earlier this year that the Department of Justice is looking into alleged fraud and immigration violations. No charges or denaturalization complaint against Omar appear in the available reporting.
Fox News Digital spoke with immigration attorney and former federal prosecutor Michael Wildes about what the government would actually have to prove.
Omar told the outlet just last week that she has not been contacted by DHS and is not aware of any investigation into her marriage or immigration status. She added that she isn’t worried because “the right wing always had this s*** going.” Neither Omar nor DHS responded to later requests for comment.
Wildes laid out the criminal standard in plain terms. To win a marriage fraud case, he said, prosecutors must show the defendant knowingly entered the marriage with the primary purpose of evading immigration law and obtaining a benefit.
"In order to establish a successful marriage fraud case, the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt... that the defendant knowingly entered into a marriage with the primary purpose to evade immigration laws and get a benefit,"
Wildes told reporters. He stressed the threshold is not met if an immigration benefit was only a byproduct or secondary consideration.
"Those are very high bars and thresholds that they would have to surmount. The immigration benefit cannot be a byproduct or secondary consideration. This is not deemed to be illegal."
If marriage fraud is proved, the penalties can reach five years in jail, a maximum fine of $250,000, or both. The marriage at issue is tied to 2009 and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, described as Omar’s husband. Wildes noted that statutes of limitations could hinder any prosecution built around that date.
Readers following the case have also seen coverage of the confirmed criminal investigation into Omar over immigration fraud allegations.
A separate pathway discussed by Wildes involves alleged falsified information when Omar obtained citizenship in 2000. Congressional records state she became a citizen at age 17. Omar has said she received automatic citizenship as a minor when her father was naturalized.
Former Minnesota congressional candidate AJ Kern has accused the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library website of revising Omar’s birth year, a claim that has fueled online arguments that she was not a minor. That dispute remains unresolved in the reporting.
Wildes framed the denaturalization stakes directly.
"We're talking about taking away a benefit and then banishing them from the United States."
He also asked whether any errors were inadvertent rather than purposeful, and whether pursuing denaturalization would be “over the top.” On document fraud, he said investigators would want to know whether Omar had counsel and whether simple mistakes on an application were later treated as fraud.
The same scrutiny has appeared in reporting that DHS opened a probe into Omar’s immigration history and alleged marriage fraud.
Wildes said Omar’s statement that she has not been contacted changes nothing about the government’s ability to investigate.
"The congresswoman's not being aware doesn't change anything,"
he said. Prosecutors have no duty to show their hand early, especially in a politically charged matter, and will want a solid case before revealing anything.
"There is no obligation for the government to show their hand, and they're going to want to make sure that they have a good prosecution, and they don't give anything up in the interim because of the politics that this presents as well."
At the same time, Wildes was blunt about the evidence he has personally reviewed.
"I haven't seen anything that I think is worthy of a prosecution,"
he said. He added that Omar is a member of Congress and that prosecutions must be handled properly, not frivolously, regardless of political disagreements.
President Trump has long clashed with Omar and has called for her return to Somalia over the alleged fraudulent activity. His administration has also moved more broadly to denaturalize and deport people accused of immigration fraud.
That enforcement posture sits against Omar’s own record of pushing to cut immigration enforcement, including her bill to strip nearly $140 billion from ICE and redirect it to immigrant communities.
Homan confirmed the existence of a criminal DHS investigation. He did not confirm evidence of guilt. Wildes described the legal bars as high and said he has not seen a case worth charging. Omar denies the brother-marriage allegation and says she has not been contacted. No indictment or denaturalization filing is reported.
Wildes put the core questions simply: Do investigators have the facts, and is moving forward the right thing to do? Whether the claims are truthful, hypothesized, or backed by hard evidence, he said, will drive any prosecution.
Conservatives tracking the Minnesota Democrat have also noted her earlier effort that drew swift backlash for targeting ICE funding, a reminder of the policy fights surrounding her tenure.
Accountability for immigration fraud is not optional when the subject holds a House seat. The law sets a high bar for a reason, and when officials clear it with real proof, they should enforce it without favor.
