Court documents reviewed by the Times reportedly provided little explanation of the alleged $10,000 transaction. Federal officials have also declined to elaborate on what investigators believe may have occurred.
The latest disclosure follows a series of investigative steps involving the Minnesota congresswoman. Last month, federal agents searched Omar’s Washington residence, while subpoenas were reportedly issued to multiple individuals within her personal circle, requiring them to appear before a grand jury.
One central question reportedly concerns Omar’s 2009 marriage and whether the relationship was arranged to assist a man suspected of being her brother in obtaining legal permanent residency in the United States.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations of wrongdoing. The congresswoman, who secured another term in office last week, has instead portrayed the scrutiny as politically motivated, accusing President Donald Trump’s administration of targeting her for political reasons.
However, investigators appear to have been examining individuals connected to Omar long before the latest developments became public.
Mohamed, a dual citizen of Somalia and Britain, initially came under federal scrutiny following an October 2025 interview connected to his application for a green card. He had sought permanent residency after marrying an American citizen in Minnesota.
During that immigration interview, officials reportedly questioned him about possible connections to the Somali government and his interactions with American political figures.
According to Rivers, an immigration official specifically asked whether Mohamed had worked for the Somali government while residing in the United States and whether he had “any interactions with any government officials or politicians in the United States,”
Mohamed reportedly answered no to both questions. However, there was additional background that would later attract investigators’ attention.
He had previously worked briefly on Omar’s security detail during an overseas trip and had also visited her congressional office on Capitol Hill.
Rivers maintains that his client has limited English proficiency and did not fully understand the questions presented during the immigration interview.
Authorities ultimately rejected Mohamed’s green card application. His legal troubles escalated in February when he received notification that the Justice Department was investigating him over allegations that he had made false statements under oath to a federal official.
The alleged offense carries a potential prison sentence of up to five years. Prosecutors subsequently filed a felony charge against him.
Court documents also indicated that the matter was assigned to two prominent Minnesota federal prosecutors: the chief of the criminal division and the official overseeing the fraud and public corruption section.
But according to Rivers, the investigation eventually took an unexpected direction.
During a March meeting with prosecutors, the attorney said investigators devoted considerable attention to Omar herself. Their questions reportedly covered her immigration background, her marital history, and the previously undisclosed $10,000 payment involving Mohamed’s brother.
Rivers further alleged that federal officials offered to help his client avoid deportation if he provided information that could damage Omar.
Two individuals familiar with the proceedings separately told the Times that investigators viewed Mohamed’s green card application as a potential opportunity to obtain information about the congresswoman.
The attorney’s account raises additional questions about how investigators approached Mohamed and what information they were attempting to establish.
In September, the Justice Department dropped the felony charge against him. Officials declined to address the specific allegations surrounding the case, but issued a statement insisting that it was “completely unrelated to any current investigations.”
Meanwhile, President Trump has made little secret of his desire to see Omar face closer scrutiny.
During a March Oval Office event announcing an anti-fraud initiative led by Vice President JD Vance, Trump publicly expressed his hope that investigators would examine the Minnesota Democrat, referring to her as “one of the ringleaders.”
Vance subsequently indicated that the administration had discussed potential accountability measures involving Omar and allegations of immigration fraud. He specifically referenced conversations with Stephen Miller, the White House adviser who was promoted to chief of staff last week.
Rivers, however, has raised serious concerns about what he believes was political involvement in the investigation.
The attorney claimed prosecutors repeatedly told him and his client that the investigation was “100 percent being run by 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,” referring to the White House.
Rivers also expressed astonishment over what he described as an unusual experience during his nearly three decades practicing federal law.
“I’ve never seen anything like this in my almost 28 years practicing law in federal court,” Rivers told the Times.
Mohamed, who was contacted by the newspaper in Nairobi, Kenya, declined to provide additional details about his dealings with investigators. He indicated that he intends to address the matter publicly at a later date, saying he would speak when the “time is right.”
For now, several important questions remain unanswered. The precise nature of the $10,000 payment, the circumstances surrounding the alleged immigration-related misconduct, and the extent of Omar’s involvement have not been established in the publicly described records.
Omar continues to deny wrongdoing, while the Justice Department has offered little detail about the broader investigative activity.
Nevertheless, the reported questioning of a former member of her security team suggests that investigators have explored connections extending beyond the congresswoman’s own immigration records.
Whether those inquiries ultimately produce evidence of criminal wrongdoing remains to be seen. But with questions surrounding the $10,000 transaction, her past marriage, and the individuals within her orbit now attracting renewed attention, the controversy surrounding the Minnesota Democrat is far from settled.
