The remarks have intensified attention on a case involving a prominent Democratic lawmaker, disputed claims about her immigration history, and questions about whether investigators are examining potential misconduct beyond the original allegations.
Homan Signals That Investigators Are Taking the Case Seriously
Homan made clear that he believes investigators should follow the evidence wherever it leads, rather than treating Omar differently because she holds elected office.
“I’ve been told they have a strong case,” Homan told The Big Weekend Show on Saturday. “We’ll let the evidence lead where it leads.”
When asked whether Omar could potentially lose her citizenship and face deportation, Homan responded directly.
“Of course,” he said. “If you lie during the naturalization process, there is a process to denaturalize somebody.”
“We’ve done it before,” he added.
His comments do not establish that Omar committed a crime, nor do they mean that authorities have already determined she is ineligible for citizenship. Instead, they underscore the potential consequences if investigators develop sufficient evidence to support the allegations.
The investigation became public after federal agents searched Omar’s Washington, D.C., residence on October 12. Authorities seized her cellphone, according to published reports, while grand jury subpoenas were issued to multiple relatives.
The search warrant reportedly identified conspiracy, immigration fraud, and false statements as potential offenses under investigation. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has also indicated that investigators are preparing to present evidence to a grand jury.
“We had a judge sign it, and we expect to be able to take the case to a grand jury,” Mullin said on The Charlie Kirk Show.
Mullin’s remarks have raised questions about whether investigators are examining possible coordination among individuals involved in the immigration process. He has discussed the possibility of broader conspiracy-related charges, although authorities have not publicly established that Omar herself faces any specific criminal charge.
A judge’s approval of a search warrant permits investigators to search for evidence under the warrant’s terms. It does not amount to a finding of guilt.
The Age Dispute at the Center of the Immigration Probe
At the heart of the investigation is a question about Omar’s age when her father became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2000.
Omar’s family fled Somalia during the 1990s, and she subsequently became a U.S. citizen. The current investigation reportedly examines historical immigration documents and whether information provided during the family’s immigration process was accurate.
The distinction between being 17 and 18 at the relevant time is central to the allegations.
Under federal law, certain children automatically acquire U.S. citizenship when a parent naturalizes, provided the statutory requirements are satisfied. Those requirements include age and other conditions governing the child’s status and residence.
Omar has maintained that she was 17 when her father naturalized. Critics have questioned whether she was actually 18, which could affect whether she qualified for automatic citizenship under the applicable law.
If investigators establish that material information was deliberately misrepresented, prosecutors could examine whether any federal immigration laws were violated. However, the age allegation remains a matter for investigators to establish, and it should not be treated as proven fact.
Reports have also linked the investigation to text messages recovered from a phone belonging to one of Omar’s relatives. Those communications reportedly contributed to investigators’ efforts to obtain judicial authorization for the search.
The full evidentiary record has not been made public. Consequently, it remains unclear what investigators believe the messages establish or how they relate to the disputed immigration documents.
A Separate Investigation Raises Questions About Financial Disclosures
The immigration inquiry is not the only matter attracting federal scrutiny.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has confirmed that her office is examining issues involving Omar’s financial disclosures. The review follows questions about dramatic changes in the reported valuations of businesses associated with her husband, Tim Mynett.
Congressional financial disclosures reportedly placed the value of businesses connected to Mynett at as much as $51,000 in 2023. A subsequent filing for 2024 listed valuations reaching as high as $30 million.
Omar later submitted an amended disclosure that placed the relevant assets in a substantially lower range, between $18,000 and $95,000.
The revisions have prompted questions about how the original valuations were calculated and why the figures changed so dramatically. Omar has attributed the discrepancy to an accounting error.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer had also sought financial records from two of Mynett’s companies earlier in the year, adding to congressional interest in the matter.
Nevertheless, a discrepancy in a financial disclosure does not, by itself, establish fraud or criminal intent. Investigators would need to determine whether the filings violated applicable legal requirements and whether any inaccuracies were knowing or otherwise legally actionable.
When Homan was asked whether the investigation might extend beyond immigration matters, he declined to discuss its scope.
“I’m not going to go there,” Homan said, before adding: “I know things.”
The remark quickly became a focal point because it suggested that Homan was aware of developments he was unwilling to discuss publicly. It did not, however, identify any additional alleged offense or confirm that investigators had uncovered further wrongdoing.
Democrats Challenge the Investigation
The investigation has triggered a fierce political response, with Democrats arguing that the timing and circumstances raise concerns about the use of federal law enforcement against a prominent critic of President Donald Trump.
Former President Barack Obama publicly defended Omar and criticized the administration’s approach. Omar has likewise rejected the allegations and characterized the investigation as politically motivated.
Her attorneys have challenged the search and demanded the return of seized property, arguing that the government’s actions were unlawful and that investigators failed to respect applicable legal protections.
The Justice Department has disputed allegations that its attorneys violated their obligations, describing the accusations in a response as “riddled with false allegations and inaccuracies.”
The dispute highlights a central issue in the case: federal authorities have obtained judicial authorization to gather evidence, but the public still does not know the complete basis for the investigation or what conclusions prosecutors may ultimately reach.
The existence of a warrant and grand jury proceedings demonstrates that investigative steps are underway. It does not eliminate Omar’s right to challenge the government’s actions or establish that the allegations are true.
With congressional elections approaching, the controversy has become another flashpoint in the broader battle between the Trump administration and its Democratic opponents.
Could Omar Actually Lose Her Citizenship?
Denaturalization is a serious legal proceeding, not an automatic consequence of an allegation or an investigative search.
Federal authorities generally must establish a legally sufficient basis for revoking naturalized citizenship through the applicable judicial process. The government would need to prove the relevant grounds under the governing law, and Omar would have the opportunity to contest the case.
If prosecutors were to establish that citizenship had been unlawfully procured through material misrepresentations, denaturalization could become a possibility. Any subsequent immigration consequences would depend on the circumstances and the applicable law.
Homan’s comments have brought that possibility into sharper focus, but no publicly established finding currently proves that Omar obtained citizenship unlawfully.
The distinction matters. A federal investigation can uncover evidence that leads to charges, but it can also end without a conviction or any further legal action.
For now, the investigation’s ultimate direction remains uncertain. Prosecutors have not publicly announced criminal charges against Omar in connection with the allegations discussed here.
The Question That Remains
The most consequential question is not what Homan meant when he said, “I know things.” It is what the evidence will ultimately establish.
If investigators substantiate the allegations, Omar could face serious legal consequences. If the evidence fails to support them, the government will have to confront the limits of its case and the criticism surrounding the investigation’s timing and execution.
Homan has offered a clear statement of the standard he believes should apply.
“She’ll be held to the same standard you and I are held. If she violated the law, then she’ll be held accountable.”
That principle cuts both ways: elected officials are not exempt from the law, but allegations against them must still be proved through a fair legal process.
As investigators continue examining Omar’s immigration history and financial disclosures, the public will be watching for concrete evidence rather than political rhetoric.
Homan’s three-word remark has fueled speculation about what authorities may uncover next. The decisive developments, however, will come from the evidence, the prosecutors handling the case, and any findings reached through the judicial process.
