I am writing prior to the Sunday morning talk shows and don’t know if the ambush deaths of two American servicemen and an interpreter Syria will keep Rep. Ilhan Omar’s immigration issue from being the day’s headline, which it likely will. Nonetheless, the Minnesota congresswoman is no stranger to controversy, particularly when it comes to her highly public opposition to Donald Trump
Since Trump first ran for office in 2016, Omar has repeatedly referred to him as a racist, accused him of stoking white nationalism, and described him as the most corrupt and inept president in history. Statements are well documented and central to her political brand as a confrontational progressive voice.
At the same time, Omar has faced a long-running and explosive allegation: that she married her brother in order to facilitate immigration benefits. She has repeatedly denied the claim. Most mainstream news organizations and fact-checking outlets have labeled the allegation “unsupported” or “unproven,” and no criminal charges have ever been filed. Yet the claim has never fully disappeared from public discourse.
Recently, the controversy resurfaced after former ICE director Tom Homan publicly acknowledged that federal authorities were reviewing immigration files related to Omar. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) then stated that if longstanding allegations regarding her 2009 marriage were proven true, Omar could potentially face criminal exposure under several statutes. Cruz cited federal marriage-fraud laws, possible state incest statutes, and potential tax issues related to joint filings—again, strictly in the hypothetical event the allegations were factual.
Homan also noted an important legal caveat: any alleged wrongdoing may be outside the statute of limitations, raising the obvious question. If prosecution is unlikely or impossible, why review the matter at all—and why has Senator Cruz chosen to weigh in publicly?
I am no fan of Ilhan Omar. At the same time, some of the political rhetoric directed at her has crossed into territory that is plainly offensive. And President Trump’s remarks suggesting that foreign-born Americans should “go back where they came from” was beneath the dignity of the office. That said, the coarsening of political discourse did not begin with Donald Trump; decorum in national politics, especially from the White House, has been eroding since the Obama years.
Omar consistently denies marrying her brother or committing immigration fraud, characterizing the allegations as racist and politically motivated, framing the broader attacks against her as rooted in xenophobia and bigotry.
Meanwhile, the claim that Rep. Omar married her brother is not just an opinion or a rhetorical insult—it’s a factual allegation of criminal conduct. And in defamation law, that distinction matters greatly. Accusing someone of a crime constitutes defamation per se. If the statement is false, reputational harm is legally presumed. Truth is the only complete defense. In other words, those making the allegation are staking everything on the assertion that it actually occurred.
To date, no conclusive evidence has been produced publicly. There is no DNA evidence, no official documentation, and no judicial finding establishing that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi—whom Omar married in 2009 and divorced years later—is her brother. The allegation remains exactly where it began: repeatedly asserted, fiercely denied, and never proven.
Courts exist to resolve disputes of this kind. A definitive legal ruling would either vindicate Omar or confirm wrongdoing. Even for a public official—who must meet the demanding “actual malice” standard to prevail in a defamation case and the allegation, if false, would certainly present a potentially strong claim. Yet Omar has never pursued legal action begging the question of, why not.
It would be logically unfair to ask Omar to prove a negative, nonetheless, one would think that when an accusation of this magnitude is made about a high-profile elected official who has a strong incentive to shut it down, that it would have already been responded to legally – but it hasn’t.
Omar knows a defamation lawsuit would open the door to extensive discovery, i.e., immigration records, family histories, and deeply personal matters would be subject to examination under oath. Even a meritless claim can become politically and personally punishing once lawyers begin probing. In our system, winning in court is not cost-free.
Meanwhile, there is also a strategic calculation. In a hyper-polarized political environment, litigation can amplify allegations rather than extinguish them. But that logic weakens over time and after years of repetition, silence no longer looks like restraint—it begins to resemble avoidance.
President Trump has repeatedly raised the allegation, but as a practical matter he is a poor legal target. Presidents enjoy broad immunity for actions within the scope of official duties, and Supreme Court precedent makes defamation claims against a president extraordinarily difficult. However, that’s not necessarily true for others who assert the claim as fact.
Ultimately, this controversy comes down to a single, unavoidable question: Is the allegation true or false? There is no middle ground – you can’t be a little bit pregnant. If it is true, Omar’s critics are legally protected regardless of motive. If it is false, it is a textbook case of defamation; and only a defamation lawsuit would force an answer by replacing rumor and speculation with hard evidence.