President Donald Trump’s campaign to remove Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar from Congress could spark an unprecedented constitutional fight over U.S. citizenship and the qualifications required to serve in the House.
Trump Calls for Omar’s Removal as Federal Probe Continues
The dispute grows out of a federal investigation into allegations that Omar improperly obtained U.S. citizenship through immigration paperwork tied to her late father.
Omar has repeatedly denied any immigration fraud. Federal authorities have not charged her, and they have not established that she obtained citizenship unlawfully.
On Oct. 12, Homeland Security Investigations agents searched Omar’s residence in Washington, D.C., after the Justice Department obtained a court-authorized search warrant. Agents reportedly seized her cellphone, computers, notebooks and passport as investigators continued reviewing her immigration and naturalization history.
Federal investigators have also subpoenaed relatives and reviewed immigration records as part of an inquiry into whether Omar’s citizenship could be revoked.
Trump has repeatedly demanded that Omar leave Congress, pointing to long-running allegations about her immigration history and her previous marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. Omar has denied that Elmi is her brother and denied that the marriage involved immigration fraud. Those allegations remain unproven.
“Let’s get her the Hell out of there,” Trump said Monday while discussing Omar during an appearance in Mississippi.
The president has no power to remove a member of Congress on his own. Any effort to oust Omar would depend on constitutional procedures and, potentially, the federal courts.
Two Paths: Challenging Eligibility or Pursuing Expulsion
The Constitution requires House members to be at least 25 years old, to have been citizens for seven years, and to be inhabitants of the states they represent when elected.
That citizenship requirement could become decisive if federal authorities obtain a court judgment revoking Omar’s naturalization. Omar was born in Somalia, arrived in the United States as a refugee and became a naturalized American citizen in 2000.
Legal experts say the dispute could raise questions the Supreme Court has not squarely resolved. The key precedent is the Court’s 1969 decision in Powell v. McCormack, which involved Democratic Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. The House refused to seat Powell after allegations involving congressional funds and payroll practices.
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not exclude a duly elected member who met the qualifications explicitly set out in the Constitution.
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo has argued that the ruling could actually support congressional action if Omar were legally determined not to be a citizen.
“Powell essentially means that Congress cannot add on to the minimum qualifications set out in the Constitution,” Yoo told Fox News Digital.
Because citizenship is one of those constitutional qualifications, Yoo argued, Congress could enforce it if Omar were ultimately found not to meet the requirement.
Constitutional scholar Cully Stimson drew a similar line between excluding someone who lacks constitutional qualifications and expelling a sitting member for misconduct.
That distinction could become especially important if Omar wins reelection on Tuesday and the citizenship investigation remains unresolved when the new Congress convenes.
One possible scenario would have House Republicans challenge whether Omar is qualified to be seated, if authorities first produce evidence undermining her citizenship status. Any such effort would almost certainly lead to litigation over the evidence, the procedures involved and the constitutional authority available to Congress.
The other option is to seat Omar and then pursue expulsion, which requires a two-thirds vote of the House under Article I.
Republican Florida Rep. Randy Fine has already said he would seek Omar’s expulsion if federal investigators establish immigration fraud or citizenship problems.
“I absolutely will demand expulsion immediately,” Fine said while discussing what he would do if Omar were determined not to be a citizen.
Expulsion raises a different constitutional question. The Supreme Court has never directly decided a case governing Congress’s power to expel a member.
The Santos Precedent and Omar’s Financial Disclosures
The Constitution expressly gives each chamber the power to expel its own members by a two-thirds vote. The 2023 expulsion of Republican former Rep. George Santos could also become relevant, because some of the misconduct Congress examined predated his election.
Stimson said lawmakers could argue that immigration-related misrepresentations continued after Omar entered Congress, which would create parallels to arguments raised during the Santos proceedings.
Omar also faces a separate investigation involving her financial disclosures and businesses associated with her husband, Timothy Mynett.
