Have federal prosecutors or the Department of Justice publicly commented on any review of Ilhan Omar’s immigration or naturalization files?
Executive summary
No public statement from the Department of Justice or named federal prosecutors confirming a review specifically of Ilhan Omar’s immigration or naturalization files appears in the available reporting; government-side claims of probes have come from administration advisers, partisan members of Congress and advocacy groups rather than an explicit DOJ confirmation [1] [2] [3]. Reporting does show that the Justice Department previously opened a probe into aspects of Omar’s finances and campaign activity in 2024 which reportedly stalled, and that congressional Republicans have sought immigration records through subpoenas — but none of those items, in the sources provided, include a DOJ spokesperson publicly saying it is reviewing her naturalization paperwork [4] [5] [6].
1. What officials have said — and what they actually claimed
Public claims that the administration is “investigating” Ilhan Omar have come from individuals outside the DOJ: Tom Homan, described in reporting as the White House “border czar,” told Newsmax the administration was investigating Omar for alleged immigration fraud [1], and President Trump and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt have publicly asserted heightened scrutiny of Omar tied to Minnesota fraud reporting and her financial disclosures [2]. Those statements are assertions by political actors and administration aides; the sources do not record a DOJ press release, U.S. attorney statement, or other federal prosecutor making a matching public declaration that immigration or naturalization files are under review [1] [2].
2. What the DOJ has done on related leads in public reporting
Independent reporting cited in these sources notes that the Justice Department opened a probe in 2024 into Omar’s finances, campaign spending and interactions with a foreign citizen, but that the inquiry “stalled” for lack of evidence — that is about finances and alleged campaign irregularities, not an explicit publicly announced review of her naturalization papers [4]. The distinction matters: news accounts describe a prior DOJ investigative step on financial/campaign matters [4], but do not show DOJ publicly stating it is scrutinizing or has obtained her immigration records.
3. Congressional actions and demands for records
Republican members of Congress have moved to obtain immigration records through committee processes: Rep. Nancy Mace publicized motions to subpoena Omar and a relative for immigration records during House Oversight hearings and argued that such records were needed to determine whether federal laws were violated in connection with Omar’s naturalization [5] [6]. Those are congressional subpoenas and statements of intent by a House Republican, not a declaration by federal prosecutors; the move signals political pressure and agenda-driven scrutiny from the GOP side [5] [6].
4. Advocacy groups, past allegations and the limits of the public record
Outside groups such as the National Legal and Policy Center have long pursued claims that Omar committed marriage- or immigration-related fraud and asserted that the FBI had initiated prior inquiries in 2019–2020 while the DOJ “took no subsequent action” — assertions that reflect advocacy and historical claims rather than new, confirmed DOJ activity disclosed in these sources [3]. The reporting supplied does not include a DOJ confirmation that it is conducting a present-day review of Omar’s naturalization files, and thus journalists and readers must treat advocacy or partisan claims separately from public prosecutorial statements [3].
5. Reading the political context and competing interpretations
The sources combine partisan congressional subpoenas, administration aides’ claims, prior stalled DOJ activity on financial matters, and advocacy group allegations into a charged political narrative: Republicans and allied groups are pushing record demands and public accusations [5] [6] [3], while administration figures amplify the idea of an investigation [1] [2]. But the absence of an on-the-record DOJ or federal prosecutor statement about reviewing her immigration or naturalization files in the cited reports means the central factual question — whether DOJ has publicly commented that it is reviewing those specific files — is answered in the negative based on the available reporting [1] [4] [5].