What did the Minneapolis Star‑Tribune find in its 2018 investigation into Ilhan Omar’s marriages?

1. What the Star‑Tribune unearthed: documents and a revived allegation

The Star‑Tribune reported that state agency documents released in 2018 gave “fresh life” to a rumor that Omar’s 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi might have been fraudulent and even alleged by some critics that Elmi was Omar’s brother; the paper reconstructed Omar’s public account of two marriages and detailed the timeline and records that fed scrutiny of those claims ^{[1] [3]}.

2. Gaps, refusals and the paper’s credibility questions

A prominent strand of the Star‑Tribune’s reporting focused less on a smoking‑gun allegation than on gaps: Omar and her campaign declined to provide certain records or arrange interviews that might verify her version of events, and she had previously described marrying and divorcing “in her faith,” a formulation the paper and local commentators flagged as raising legal questions about civil paperwork and campaign filings ^{[2] [1]}.

3. The formal inquiries the reporting referenced

The Star‑Tribune noted that the state Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board spent nearly a year investigating related filings and that the matter drew depositions and expanded review before the 2018 election, signaling that the allegations had attracted official attention even as prosecutors or other law‑enforcement agencies did not, at that time, charge Omar with marriage or immigration fraud ^[2].

4. How the paper framed the brother‑marriage claim

Rather than declaring the rumor true, the Star‑Tribune framed the brother‑marriage claim as an explosive allegation circulating online and in partisan outlets, tracing how the story proliferated and documenting the specific assertions — for example, that Omar’s 2009 marriage coincided with Elmi’s entry to U.S. education and residency — while stopping short of definitive proof of kinship or fraud ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Responses and context the Star‑Tribune recorded

The reporting recorded Omar’s response that prior statements were about religious, not civil, ceremonies and captured her campaign’s contention that critics were politically motivated; the paper also noted commentators and partisan websites that amplified the rumor and the unusual partisan context in which the story spread ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

6. Limits of the Star‑Tribune’s conclusions and what follow‑up reporting found

The Star‑Tribune’s investigation raised questions and highlighted inconsistencies, but it did not produce irrefutable documentary proof that Omar had married a sibling or committed immigration fraud; subsequent fact‑checking and reporting by outlets such as PolitiFact and Snopes found no credible public records corroborating the brother‑marriage claim and reported that credible sources did not overturn Omar’s account ^{[3] [5]}.

7. Why the story mattered and how it was used politically

The Star‑Tribune piece became a focal point in a larger partisan controversy: critics and some national figures seized on the reporting to allege misconduct, while defenders pointed to the absence of formal charges and to later fact‑checks; the paper’s detailed reconstruction was therefore influential not because it proved criminality but because it supplied documentation that opponents could—and did—use to amplify suspicion ^{[1] [3]}.

8. Bottom line — facts established vs. questions left open

Factually, the Star‑Tribune established that there were multiple marriages in Omar’s history, that state records and agency reviews touched on related campaign and filing questions, and that some documents revived allegations about the 2009 marriage; however, it did not establish the definitive familial relationship alleged by some critics nor did it produce legal findings of marriage or immigration fraud — gaps later reiterated by independent fact‑checkers ^{[2] [3] [5]}.