|
| | 1943 Naturalization and immigration fraud cases weren’t new, but this case was unique. Wendell Willkie, a Republican presidential nominee defeated by FDR in 1940, signed on to defend Schneiderman free of charge. Calling it a “vital test case,” Willkie believed the outcome could affect every naturalized American. Defending Schneiderman meant defending the constitutional protections allowing all Americans to hold beliefs their government disliked. Lower courts had accepted the government’s case that (although he became a citizen in 1927) Schneiderman’s Communist affiliation meant he should have his naturalization revoked. In 1942 and again in 1943, Willkie argued before the Supreme Court, and in June of 1943, the Court reversed. Ruling that the government hadn’t supplied the “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence needed to undo Schneiderman’s citizenship, the Court’s ruling still left room to revoke citizenship on proper legal grounds. It made clear the government must meet an exacting burden before stripping away something so consequential. As a Republican who would seek to run against FDR again in 1944, Willkie proved that defending someone’s citizenship did not require sharing their politics. |
|
| That merits attention today as federal officials have opened investigations into Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar. On October 12, agents searched her Washington, D.C. home. Her attorneys described the investigation as political retaliation and disputed the legality of the search. Justice officials say agents complied with all court orders and legal obligations, while President Trump has denied directing the search. |
| 80 years | Former President Barack Obama echoed Willkie’s concerns from more than 80 years earlier. |
|
| “That any president, or any administration…willing to engage in such transparent efforts to intimidate someone should outrage all Americans, regardless of how they feel about Congresswoman Omar’s political views.” He seemed to support Willkie’s rationale further, adding, “if this becomes the new normal, there’s no reason to believe it will stop with her — or that future presidents, in either party, won’t do the same.” |
| | If this becomes the new normal, there’s no reason to believe it will stop with her — or that future presidents, in either party, won’t do the same. FORMER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA |
|
| This is not the first time she has come under scrutiny. It is why Omar’s attorneys and supporters point to her long-standing hostilities with President Trump, dating back to her arrival in Congress in 2019, as evidence of her being targeted by the administration now. Over the years, her comments on such issues as Israel, September 11, and immigration have brought her into direct opposition to the president. During his 2026 State of the Union, she shouted at him with others about immigration enforcement. In response, Trump has called for her resignation or said she should be sent “back where [she] came from.” |
| The Washington Post reported that an immigration review in 2019 did not produce sufficient grounds for a full investigation. But CNN also noted that inquiries about Omar predated Trump’s return to office in his second term. This complicates the case because a prior administration’s inaction does not rule out new evidence; it makes whatever has changed particularly important, especially when the government revisits records from years earlier. |
| If his hostility predates the current investigation, many have asked, “Why search her home now?” Some argue it is because of the midterms, only two weeks away. |
| Trump’s Border czar Tom Homan spoke to the press about Omar’s potential denaturalization and deportation should the government’s claims prove true, but also explained that such a process is a “long, tedious process.” Prompting more questions about the timing. |
| The legal questions also require consideration. Federal law allows for a civil case that could revoke naturalization obtained unlawfully, through deliberate misrepresentation, or through material concealment. A criminal conviction is not always necessary. In Rep. Omar’s case, it may involve citizenship she acquired through a parent while she was a minor. Investigations seem to point to questions about her age when she became a citizen in 2000. Determination of whether she met the requirements will require reliable records and applicable law. |
| Is that all that is under consideration? That’s a big question as headlines point to more and more potential points of investigation ranging from DNA samples, cell phone records reportedly used to obtain warrants, and the April 2026 shuttering of Rep. Omar’s husband’s winery. What can be considered for her immigration case is the distinction between citizenship and the certificate documenting it. |
| Federal law says that certain improperly obtained certificates can be canceled, but also clearly states that cancellation of the certificate does not negate the individual’s citizenship status if it was lawfully acquired. Any attempts to deport Omar must address such distinctions in the laws. |
| In June of 2025, the Justice Department began instructing attorneys to pursue any cases involving the revocation of citizenship when the evidence and law support doing so. Priority was given to cases around national security threats, serious crimes, and incidents of fraud. But policy allows other cases considered important, giving prosecutors a lot of room to select just who to investigate. It also allows their choices to be questioned. |
| Questioning not just the merit of, but also the timing of Omar’s case matters. Justice Department rules forbid attorneys from choosing when to investigate, charge, or make statements if it helps or harms a candidate or political party. However, there isn’t a blanket rule that prevents investigations in the final 60 days before an election. Evidence can also be used to justify immediate action. In the case of Rep. Omar, the Justice Department must be able to explain why the search of her home was so essential when midterm voting was already underway. |
| The president’s history of publicly attacking Omar creates a great deal of public speculation as to the timing of this investigation, too. As recently as October 19, during a Kansas rally, Trump once again lashed out at Omar and other Muslim Democrats. Though he has repeatedly denied directing the search of her home, and his remarks cannot explain what motivated investigators, they do show that investigations may benefit a politician or political party before allegations are proved true. |
| Currently, accusations against Omar dominate many headlines while voters have no access to any evidence behind them. And the attacks on Omar are not along just one front. In 2019, Jeanine Pirro made comments about Omar’s wearing of hijab, asking whether it showed she followed Sharia laws that might be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Her remarks were condemned by her own network, and Pirro later amended her statement, saying that being Muslim did not mean an individual could not support the Constitution. However, she had publicly questioned Omar’s loyalty through questions about her faith. |
| Now the top federal prosecutor in Washington, Pirro’s office is also investigating Rep. Omar, looking at her finances as a separate issue from immigration. In September, The Wall Street Journal noted that the Office of Congressional Conduct voted to recommend dismissing any financial allegations (in a 5-1 vote). While that doesn’t address the immigration issue or halt any criminal investigation from Pirro’s office, it should accompany any accounts of her finances, especially if the separate allegations are presented together as some sort of evidence of a pattern of wrongdoing. |
| A CNN report stated that the judge who had signed off on the home search also required safeguards for any records associated with Omar’s work as a lawmaker. Such safeguards would allow the investigation to move forward, but also protect legislative work from interference by the administration. Attorneys for Omar say federal agents failed to follow such instructions, while the Justice Department insists they did. Resolving this dispute matters; the authority to investigate one member of Congress comes with limitations meant to ensure the independence of Congress itself. |
| These limitations or restrictions are part of the checks and balances that apply when an administration investigates a member of Congress. The evidence could justify a case against Omar, but the investigators must obey the court’s instructions and respect protections for her congressional work. Any finding of wrongdoing does not excuse any failure to follow those rules. Any administration would have to remain accountable to the law while aiming to hold one of its most severe critics accountable, as well. |
| Willkie defended someone whose politics were in opposition to his own because he believed the protections at stake belonged to all naturalized American citizens. While the cases against Schneiderman and Omar differ, both demand the government establish lawful grounds for challenging citizenship. Omar’s voters can determine her fitness for office; challenges to her citizenship must be under the law, and must allow her to contest the evidence the government is obliged to produce. |
| American politics will probably keep bringing us the “oh, shut up” moments; we’re used to them. It becomes a problem when hostilities are backed by the power of the federal government. This is precisely when checks and balances are supposed to do their work. Political opponents can dislike one another all they want, but they are still bound by the same rules. Any American should not have to remain in the president’s good graces to remain an American. |
Faithfully,  |
P.S. I want to hear your take on this. Hit reply and share your biggest takeaway from today’s issue. (Yes, this goes straight to my inbox.) |
NOTES |
HOW DID WE DO TODAY? |
