Which prosecutors or agencies have investigated Ilhan Omar and when did they open or close inquiries?
Executive summary
Multiple past inquiries and reviews into allegations about Representative Ilhan Omar are described in the available sources: the FBI and the House Ethics Committee have reviewed immigration‑related rumors and closed inquiries without charges [1]. A Minnesota Campaign Finance Board investigation concluded she broke campaign finance law after a year‑long probe [2]. Recent calls for fresh federal probes (DOJ, DHS, ICE, HSI) have been amplified by conservative outlets but are advocacy, not documented opened investigations in the provided reporting [3] [4].
1. What federal agencies have been reported to review allegations — and what the records say
Reporting and summaries in these search results say the FBI and the House Ethics Committee previously “reviewed” allegations related to Omar’s immigration history and closed inquiries with no charges cited [1]. Omar’s own statements after a June 2025 federal enforcement action mention contact with local FBI, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Minneapolis Police Department and Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and that HSI described the event as “part of a criminal investigation, not an immigration raid” — but those statements do not detail an opened or closed federal prosecution against Omar herself [5]. Advocacy and news outlets also report that calls are growing for DOJ, DHS and ICE to investigate, but those are demands rather than documented openings of formal, concluded federal probes in the provided materials [3].
2. What congressional ethics or political‑law bodies have done
The House Ethics Committee is cited as having “reviewed” past allegations and closed its inquiry without charges, according to summaries in the reporting [1]. Separately, state‑level action is documented: the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board conducted an approximately year‑long investigation and — per a GOP caucus press release posting — “upheld” a complaint finding that Omar broke the law after that probe [2]. That Minnesota CFB finding is a formal administrative result reported on a state legislative website, distinct from federal criminal or immigration action [2].
3. Media investigations and fact‑checks that shaped official reviews
Multiple media fact‑checks and news investigations are repeatedly cited across the sources as having examined the “married her brother” allegation and found no verified evidence of biological relation or definitive proof of immigration fraud; those fact‑checks informed public understanding and are invoked by outlets noting that FBI and Ethics reviews found no charges [6] [4] [7]. PolitiFact’s catalog of fact‑checks also indicates numerous disputed social posts and claims about Omar that have circulated publicly [8].
4. Recent enforcement actions and the uncertainty they create
A June 4, 2025 statement from Rep. Omar describes a federal enforcement action on Lake Street and her office’s contact with FBI and HSI; the statement says HSI confirmed it was “part of a criminal investigation,” but available sources do not provide an agency charging or closing a probe against Omar personally or explain the ultimate outcome [5]. Conservative and partisan outlets, opinion pieces and advocacy groups have pressed for expanded federal investigations and denaturalization, but those calls are not equivalent in the sources to documented openings of DOJ or ICE probes [3] [9].
5. Political context: how investigations are framed and used
Coverage shows a clear political pattern: Republican officeholders and conservative media have amplified demands for denaturalization or new probes — including President Trump urging deportation — while fact‑checkers and earlier investigations found no conclusive evidence of immigration fraud [4] [1] [7]. Advocacy groups such as the National Legal and Policy Center explicitly call for DOJ action and denaturalization, signaling an agenda to escalate legal scrutiny [9]. These political pressures are prominent in the reporting and shape public calls for investigations, even when the documented agency actions in the sources are limited or closed [1] [9].
6. What’s missing or unresolved in the available reporting
The sources document prior reviews (FBI, House Ethics Committee), a state campaign‑finance finding, a federal enforcement activity referenced by Omar’s office, and renewed calls for DOJ/DHS action — but the materials do not provide a comprehensive timeline listing each probe’s opening and formal closure dates, nor do they show indictments or convictions of Ilhan Omar related to the immigration allegations [1] [2] [5]. Available sources do not mention detailed DOJ case filings, formal denaturalization proceedings, or final federal decisions against Omar in connection with the “brother marriage” allegation [1] [5].
7. Bottom line for readers
The record in these sources is mixed: media and fact‑checkers report no verified proof of the core immigration fraud allegation and cite closed reviews by the FBI and House Ethics Committee [1] [7]. At the same time, a Minnesota Campaign Finance Board reached an adverse finding after a year‑long probe [2], and recent enforcement activity and partisan pressure have renewed calls for federal investigations [5] [3]. Readers should distinguish documented agency actions (CFB ruling; cited FBI/Ethics reviews) from political demands and advocacy pushing for new probes [2] [1] [3].