President Donald Trump has his favorite riffs during campaign rallies.

He’s recently complimented the physique of Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio. He still calls out former President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

But in recent weeks, the president spun Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., into heavy rotation on his playlist. The Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department are now probing Omar for alleged immigration fraud and financial disclosure reports.

TRUMP SAYS ILHAN OMAR COULD GO TO JAIL OR BE DEPORTED, CALLS HER ‘A DISGRACE TO OUR COUNTRY’

"What she did was use a fake name and other things that are fake," the president groused about Omar. "She used the fake name to be sworn in. I assume she must immediately resign from Congress."

Trump argued that Democrats "just conceded her seat."

They didn’t.

And the president declared that "she will not be legally allowed to be a member of that august body of politicians."

Not accurate.

The president doesn’t decide who gets to sit in Congress. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution grants that power to the House and Senate. It charges both bodies with authority to "be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." The Constitution goes on to say that the House and Senate may "punish its Members for Disorderly Behavior; and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

We bring up those responsibilities because it’s possible that the House may need to tangle with the "qualifications" of Omar. Especially since the New York Times reported that the Minnesota Democrat faced scrutiny by the Obama-era Justice Department in 2016. Moreover, that inquiry says the feds found evidence that she may have entered into a fraudulent marriage.

If that’s the case, there could be questions about Omar’s citizenship. And thus, whether she’s even permitted to serve in Congress. Especially if it’s found she was naturalized as a citizen via bogus means.

Republicans have been after Omar for years. Across the aisle, Democrats are concerned this could be a distracting headache. Especially if they seize control of the House after the midterms next week.

THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO WHY REMOVING ILHAN OMAR FROM CONGRESS COULD BE HARDER THAN TRUMP EXPECTS

The inquiry into Omar began in 2016 when she ran for the state legislature. Former President Barack Obama was in office. The investigation continued into the Biden administration. The feds terminated the inquiry in 2021.

After the Trump administration raided Omar’s home in October — seizing electronics and documents — Obama defended the congresswoman.

"It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say," the former president said. "But that’s exactly what the Trump administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar."

Obama said the current inquiry flipped her life "upside down" and characterized it as an effort to "intimidate someone."

Controversial influencer and livestreamer Hasan Piker asked Omar about how her week was going amid the investigation.

"It tracks for me," replied Omar. "That’s kind of what I’m used to."

A spokeswoman for Omar said that she "has repeatedly and unequivocally denied this baseless, disgusting conspiracy theory."

But indications that Omar faced scrutiny ten years ago make it harder to characterize this as wild, right-wing conjecture emanating from the blogosphere.

"Who ordered [the investigation] closed?" asked Fox contributor Paul Mauro. "Reportedly, both administrations had opened cases into this. We now know how much smoke there is."

Omar campaigned for the state legislature in 2016. Her campaign released a letter from the U.S. attorney saying it "wasn’t investigating" nor requesting an inquiry into Omar.

So was she cleared? Or does word of the old probe pour petrol on the flames?

"Omar will talk about and say, ‘They've looked into this. Nothing came about it,’" said University of Minnesota political science professor Kathryn Pearson. "But I think it's also a talking point that Republicans will use. So I think sort of both sides will try to use that to their advantage."

John Nagel is Omar’s Republican opponent on the ballot next week. Nagel views the new investigation as a political wedge.

"With the raid on her home, people should keep this in mind. It's a very serious accusation," Nagel said. "As far as I'm concerned, Somalia comes first in her life. And we are nothing more than a piggy bank for her."

TRUMP PUSH TO OUST OMAR FACES HISTORIC SUPREME COURT TEST, BUT LEGAL EXPERTS SEE ‘UNCHARTED’ TWIST

At least one Republican is ready to bounce Omar from the House.

"If the evidence shows that she is not an American, she has to be removed immediately and probably put in prison," said Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla. "I think the idea that a foreigner might be actually serving in Congress should be terrifying to Americans."

But another House Republican urges caution.

"We just need all the facts," said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J. "I hope that the investigation is thorough, fair, and absolutely aboveboard."

And then there is the question of due process.

"The Ethics Committee should commence an investigation. It takes two-thirds of the House to expel a sitting Member. I would highly doubt the Democrats would agree. And certainly not without findings," Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., told Fox. "I think at a minimum, the Ethics Committee should move forward with an investigation immediately upon our return."

This could develop into a real hornet’s nest for the House when lawmakers descend on Washington after the midterms. That’s to say nothing of questions about seating Omar when the new Congress starts in January. If Democrats win the House, would House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. — perhaps as speaker — be forced to grapple with the question of seating Omar if Republicans move to exclude her?

In fact, such a motion to exclude comes right before the new speaker swears in the entire House on Jan. 3. The speaker would swear in 434 members. Then takes votes related to the potential member in question. If Democrats win the House, new, moderate House Democrats might take their first formal floor vote on whether to seat Omar.

Voting against Omar might be good for some of these new members, considering the political nature of their battleground districts. But would the Democratic brass pressure new members to vote with the caucus on such a nettlesome issue?

Democrats who vote to seat Omar give Republicans an immediate opportunity to build a case against newly-christened members representing swing districts. A vote to exclude or expel Omar would go down as one of the most important roll calls of the entire two-year Congress.

We haven’t even explored how progressives and Democratic Socialists — new to the House — might rage at moderate Democrats for not supporting their colleague. That could produce a serious schism among Democrats.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

This isn’t going away. Omar is a lightning rod. The GOP believes it can continue to milk this. President Trump has his favorite riffs about Omar. And it’s possible that House Republicans may as well.

Federal Judge James Boasberg, dubbed a "Radical left lunatic" by President Donald Trump, is presiding over several high-profile cases challenging actions made by the Trump administration, raising questions about how judges are assigned to cases.

The scrutiny comes as Boasberg, an Obama-appointed chief judge of the Washington, D.C. district court, oversees a challenge brought by several media outlets seeking to force the Justice Department to unseal the search warrant on the home of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., stemming from two federal investigations.

"Judge James Boasberg is now involved with the Ilhan Omar case," Steve Ferguson, a self-described business owner with more than 250,000 followers on X, wrote in a social media post. "Is everything rigged?"

In the federal court of the District of Columbia, cases are assigned to judges randomly by an electronic system managed by the clerk's office operating under the direction of the Calendar and Case Management Committee, according to the rules of the court. The committee consists of three to five judges appointed by the chief justice.

FEDERAL AGENTS RAID ILHAN OMAR’S DC HOME AMID IMMIGRATION FRAUD INVESTIGATION

There are exceptions to the random-assignment process. For example, criminal grand jury matters are assigned to and overseen by the chief judge, currently Boasberg. This means Boasberg’s assignment to oversee the fight over unsealing the search warrant for Omar was "not a surprise" to Eric Wessan, Iowa’s solicitor general.

"But there are a lot of cases that seem to be going to judges maybe based on those cases having similarities which is not what the local rules say," Wessan told Fox News Digital.

When a case needs to be reassigned, the Calendar and Case Management Committee will determine how the reassignment is made.

Wessan suggested that concerns over how case assignments are made is valid, considering some of the high-profile cases against the Trump administration which have appeared in Boasberg's docket.

"If one is just following anecdotally, there does seem to be a lot of high-profile cases in front of judges that seem to be expressing unusual amounts of frustration or disagreement with the administration," Wessan said, urging greater transparency in how case assignments are made.

TRUMP’S FIGHT OVER RARELY USED 18TH-CENTURY DEPORTATION LAW LIVES ON IN LATEST COURT CLASH

The fight over unsealing the release of Omar's search warrant is just one of several cases involving the Trump administration and now on Boasberg's docket. Boasberg is also overseeing California’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over voter-roll disputes. On Friday, he ordered the administration to provide the state with the names and supporting information for roughly 20,000 people whom the DOJ claims are noncitizens on California’s voter rolls by the end of the day.

Boasberg has issued several consequential rulings against the Trump administration, including a high-profile March 2025 order directing the administration to turn around deportation flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. The Trump administration fought against the order, pointing to the Alien Enemies Act as legal justification for the deportations. The dispute over the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act eventually reached the Supreme Court, which vacated Boasberg's temporary restraining order blocking deportation flights, ruling that the case was brought in the wrong jurisdiction.

That same month, Boasberg was assigned a lawsuit seeking to preserve Signal messages after top Trump administration officials discussed plans for a Yemen strike in a group chat that accidentally included Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg. He later ordered the administration to preserve the messages.

The string of cases prompted Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Chip Roy, R-Texas, to send a letter in May 2025 to the court clerk asking for greater clarity on how judicial assignments are made. The lawmakers questioned whether assignments were truly random, as the court’s rules state.

"The Committee cannot independently verify the randomness of case assignments because the composition of assignment decks is kept secrets," the lawmakers wrote.

"We must understand the nature of the case assignment process in the District Court—which is considering a number of cases challenging the Trump Administration’s policy decisions—to consider and develop appropriate legislation," the lawmakers wrote.

FEDERAL JUDGE KICKED OFF 'BOTCH JOB' ANTI-DEI CASE AFTER STUNNING APPEALS COURT REBUKE

Meanwhile, Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., introduced legislation in July that would require federal district courts to assign cases randomly, without exceptions, naming it the Boasberg Act. The bill is currently stalled in committee.

"Judge Boasberg is the poster child for a rogue judge and exposed serious loopholes in our judicial system. Randomly assigning cases among judges ensures the American people can have confidence in the impartiality of our courts," Schmitt said in a statement.

Under the rules of D.C. Court, the chief justice does not have the power to reassign a case. The Calendar and Case Management Committee handles case reassignments. The court must notify the judges and attorneys involved, but it does not have to publicly explain why a case was reassigned. Wessan has called for greater transparency.

"The rules shouldn’t say one thing if it’s not true. But if it is true, they could just say so. I think the issue is with the exceptions—what happens in those exceptional cases and how often do they occur?" Wessan said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"Given the frequency of the concerning episodes in the district court, erring on the side of transparency is probably prudent to the extent that there are exceptions to the normal random-assignment system," Wessan said.

President Donald Trump' s push to oust Rep. Ilhan Omar amid allegations of immigration fraud could trigger a constitutional fight, with legal experts telling Fox News Digital that a landmark Supreme Court case involving another entrenched Democrat may not stand in Republicans’ way.

Federal investigators are examining whether the Minneapolis Democrat improperly obtained U.S. citizenship through allegedly fraudulent immigration paperwork involving her late father. Omar has denied wrongdoing, and no finding that she lacks U.S. citizenship has been established.

Experts said Omar may not have the protections established in the landmark case involving House chairman Adam Clayton Powell Jr., D-N.Y., in which the Supreme Court blocked an effort to exclude him from Congress.

Powell faced allegations of misusing congressional funds and improperly paying his wife from the congressional payroll. Despite his reelection, the House voted to exclude him in 1967, but the Supreme Court later ruled that Congress could not refuse to seat a duly elected member who satisfied the Constitution's qualifications.

ILHAN OMAR SHOULD BE JAILED, DEPORTED IF CITIZENSHIP FRAUD PROVEN, TOP HOUSE REPUBLICAN SAYS

The first potential route for Republicans would be to challenge whether Omar meets the Constitution's citizenship requirement. Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo and constitutional scholar Cully Stimson told Fox News Digital that the Powell ruling does not prevent Congress from enforcing constitutional qualifications.

"Powell essentially means that Congress cannot add on to the minimum qualifications set out in the Constitution," Yoo said. "[S]ince citizenship is set out in the text of the Constitution as a qualification, it clearly can be enforced by Congress. Powell in-fact would support a congressional decision to oust Congresswoman Omar if she was in fact not a citizen."

Stimson argued that citizenship itself is not a legal gray area.

"The Powell v. McCormack decision did not involve expulsion. It actually was to judge qualifications. That's a subtle but important difference," he said.

Stimson envisioned a January showdown if federal authorities presented evidence challenging Omar's citizenship before the new Congress convenes and House Republicans attempted to prevent her from being seated. Such a move would likely face a legal challenge from Omar, he said, raising questions about whether Congress could act before her citizenship status was resolved.

The Constitution requires House members to be at least 25 years old, have been U.S. citizens for seven years and inhabit the states they represent when elected. Stimson argued that even if alleged immigration irregularities originated with Omar's father, Nur Omar Mohamed, the central question would be whether she legally acquired citizenship, regardless of whether she knowingly participated in wrongdoing.

"It's like you're either pregnant or you're not," he said. "You’re either wet or dry — You're a citizen or you are not a citizen."

In multiple public comments, Trump has urged Omar’s resignation or expulsion, specifically citing reports that she used a pseudonym when she was sworn into office and that she "married her brother."

"Let’s get her the Hell out of there," he said Monday in Alcorn County, Mississippi.

Fox News Digital reached out to Omar for comment.

COULD TRUMP REVOKE ILHAN OMAR'S CITIZENSHIP FOR ALLEGED BROTHER MARRIAGE? EX FEDERAL PROSECUTOR BREAKS IT DOWN

A second route would involve seating Omar and then pursuing expulsion for misconduct, a separate constitutional power requiring a two-thirds House vote. Unlike exclusion for failing to meet constitutional qualifications, expulsion is a disciplinary action that was not at issue in the Supreme Court's Powell ruling.

At least one House Republican has already threatened to pursue that option.

Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., said Friday that if Omar is found to not be a citizen, "I absolutely will demand expulsion immediately."

Omar faces a separate investigation into her financial disclosures, which U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro previously confirmed to Fox News. The inquiry follows scrutiny of businesses tied to her current husband, Timothy Mynett, whose reported valuations reached as high as $30 million before Omar amended the filings, citing accounting errors. No financial wrongdoing has yet been established.

Stimson pointed to the 2023 expulsion of former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., as an example of the House exercising its disciplinary authority over misconduct that began before a member took office.

Former House counsel Michael Stern wrote in an examination of the Constitution’s expulsion clause that while Santos’ alleged misconduct largely preceded his term, House investigators found that his misrepresentations continued while he was in office.

"Thus, acts committed before a member’s first election may constitute disorderly behavior subject to congressional discipline, at least if the misconduct relates to the election and particularly if it involves deceiving the electorate," Stern wrote.

Stimson said Omar’s case is largely "uncharted waters," but the Santos case could still be instructive.

"I think the argument would be, well, her misrepresentations continued during the time in Congress, they would pull a Santos and use the same logic that they used," he said.

Any federal determination challenging Omar's citizenship could trigger a legal battle over whether she meets the constitutional requirements for office and what recourse she would have to contest such a finding, Stimson said.

"The hard part for her is ‘how do you prove a negative’," Stimson said, adding that placing blame on her father wouldn’t stand up in court because people cannot legally benefit from others’ criminal acts.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

"It’s a harsh world, but it’s a binary situation."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

A challenge to Omar's citizenship could also produce a separate fight over the evidence and legal procedures required to establish whether she meets the Constitution's qualifications.

Fox News Digital’s Pedro Rodriguez-Aparicio contributed to this report.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said his department has presented a “large case” to the Justice Department in the federal investigation of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

The post Mullin Says DHS Has Presented DOJ a ‘Large Case’ Against Ilhan Omar appeared first on Breitbart.

El Frente Polisario celebró la medida y señaló: "el veto de Rusia ha detenido un curso de acción profundamente peligroso impulsado por los Estados Unidos: uno que corría el riesgo de legitimar la ocupación de Marruecos a expensas de los derechos fundamentales del pueblo saharaui y su derecho a la autodeterminación".