What has the FBI publicly said about the investigation into the Ilhan Omar town hall attack?

1. The FBI says it is leading the probe, and is otherwise publicly tight-lipped

Multiple local and national outlets reported that Minneapolis police formally handed investigative lead to the FBI and that the bureau’s press office emphasized it would not release more information while the inquiry is active, using language about preserving investigative integrity and declining further comment ^{[1] [5] [3]}. Police statements and newsroom reporting show a consistent pattern: local agencies are directing media inquiries to the FBI, and the bureau has not offered a timeline or public status updates beyond confirming its role ^{[2] [6]}.

2. What federal involvement means — publicly stated and implied

News organizations and local prosecutors noted the FBI’s takeover and have suggested the possibility of federal charges, with Hennepin County officials indicating charges could move to federal court; forensic work and custody were handled locally initially but the FBI’s lead role raises the prospect of federal assault or civil-rights-related charges if evidence supports them, though the bureau has not made any such intentions public ^{[7] [8]}. The publicly available record shows only that the FBI is conducting the ongoing investigation; it has not outlined investigative steps, forensic results, or charging decisions ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Known facts the FBI has not disputed — suspect, arrest, and preliminary forensics

Minneapolis police identified and arrested a suspect, 55-year-old Anthony J. Kazmierczak, on suspicion of third‑degree assault and booked him into Hennepin County Jail; multiple outlets cite that arrest and the initial charge while noting the FBI’s subsequent takeover ^{[8] [1]}. Local authorities and forensic teams reported preliminary findings that the sprayed liquid was non‑toxic and likely apple cider vinegar, reporting those conclusions publicly even as investigative control shifted to the FBI, but the bureau itself has not publicly corroborated or commented on those specific forensic claims ^{[7] [2] [9]}.

4. What the FBI has explicitly not said — motive, wider threats, and specific evidence

The bureau has not publicly identified a motive, tied the suspect to extremist networks, or disclosed whether it is treating the incident as a politically motivated federal crime; local police and prosecutors likewise declined to speculate and deferred to the FBI for details ^{[10] [3]}. Media reports indicate officials are considering charges and that Capitol Police called the attack “unacceptable,” but the FBI has provided no public assessment of whether the incident constitutes a federal threat to a member of Congress or whether it will seek federal prosecution ^{[11] [1]}.

5. The public record and competing narratives — why the FBI’s silence matters

The limited public statements from the FBI — essentially confirmation of leadership and an announcement of no further details — have left a vacuum quickly filled by partisan claims and conjecture, from local officials’ assurances that the substance was nontoxic to former President Trump’s public suggestion the event was staged; those competing narratives underscore why investigators often limit public disclosure, but they also fuel speculation when high-profile incidents involve elected officials ^{[7] [10] [12]}. Reporting from outlets including The Washington Post, Time, ABC and local Minnesota outlets all reflect that the bureau’s only clear public position so far is to lead the probe while withholding additional information to protect investigative integrity ^{[13] [8] [10] [4]}.