Omar Relatives Subpoenaed in DHS Immigration Probe

Multiple relatives of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) have been issued grand jury subpoenas as part of a Department of Homeland Security criminal investigation into the family’s immigration paperwork, the latest in a widening set of federal inquiries directed at the congresswoman and those close to her.

The subpoenas were issued on Friday, three days before Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents searched Omar’s Washington, D.C., home in a predawn raid on Monday, CBS News reported. The Wall Street Journal reported that more than a dozen subpoenas were issued, including to some relatives, seeking testimony before a grand jury in Minnesota.

What Prompted the Investigation

According to multiple accounts, the inquiry centers on whether Omar or her late father altered her age in immigration paperwork to indicate she was 17 rather than 18 when her father applied for citizenship — a discrepancy that could have allowed her to acquire citizenship through her father rather than through a separate application process.

Omar fled Somalia’s civil war with her family at age eight, spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya, arrived in the United States in 1995, and became a citizen in 2000. Her father died in 2020, a fact that investigators have acknowledged complicates evidence-gathering.

HSI, the criminal investigative arm of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is leading the probe, with the Department of Justice assisting. During Monday’s search, agents blocked off the street around Omar’s home and removed boxes labeled “Seized Property Evidence.” According to CBS News, investigators seized Omar’s personal cell phone; the Wall Street Journal reported that her passport, personal computers, and notebooks were also taken.

The newspaper reported that the Trump administration is investigating Omar with the aim of revoking her citizenship and eventually deporting her. No lawsuit seeking to revoke her citizenship has been filed, and such a step would require court proceedings — the investigation alone does not strip her citizenship or authorize deportation.

A Second, Separate Inquiry

A separate criminal investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., into the valuation of several businesses owned by Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett. D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro confirmed the probe during a Fox News interview this week.

According to Fox News, Omar’s financial disclosures showed the reported value of Mynett’s businesses — the eStCru LLC winery and Rose Lake Capital LLC — surging from roughly $51,000 in 2023 to as much as $30 million in 2024. Omar amended the filings in April 2026, reducing the couple’s combined assets to between $18,004 and $95,000 and attributing the discrepancy to an accounting error that failed to account for business liabilities.

In September 2026, the Office of Congressional Conduct voted 5-1 to recommend that the House Ethics Committee dismiss misconduct allegations stemming from the financial disclosures, finding no substantial reason to believe Omar had reported false or incomplete information. That review is separate from the federal investigation Pirro described.

It remains unclear whether the two federal investigations are connected.

Timing Raises Questions

The decision to take overt investigative steps so close to the November 3 midterm elections has drawn sharp criticism and raised questions about whether the actions run afoul of the Justice Department’s own guidelines. Those guidelines stipulate that federal prosecutors and agents “may never select the timing of any action” for the purpose of affecting an election or giving an advantage to a candidate or party.

The department has customarily operated under an unwritten “60-day rule,” cited in a 2016 DOJ inspector general report, under which prosecutors generally avoid public investigative steps related to electoral matters within 60 days of a primary or general election.

As Al Jazeera noted, Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor and former federal public corruption prosecutor, said the raid appeared to break with that practice, though there is no way to enforce the policy. “The idea is to avoid even the appearance of any kind of interference by the Department of Justice with the political process,” he said.

It is also not immediately clear why the government moved to execute the warrant so close to the election, given that some of the documents at issue date back to Omar’s childhood and were completed by her late father.

The Legal and Institutional Backdrop

The search warrant was approved by a magistrate judge only after extended back-and-forth with Justice Department attorneys over how to address the United States v. Rayburn House Office Building case, a 2007 D.C. Circuit decision. That ruling held that in a criminal investigation of a sitting member of Congress, the executive branch cannot review seized information without allowing the member to screen it for legislative privilege under the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause. The judge ordered protocols permitting Omar and her counsel to review the materials.

The Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, which handles politically sensitive investigations, was consulted before the search. But that unit was largely gutted under the Trump administration, reduced from roughly 35 to 40 lawyers to about two.

Reactions and Political Fallout

Omar’s office rejected the investigation in forceful terms. In a statement, her office called the raid “an outrageous abuse of power and an unprecedented escalation in the weaponization of federal law enforcement to target political enemies.”

Omar herself, posting on social media, wrote: “I’m ok. Make no mistake: this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement.” She added that “for ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns” and that “I will not be silenced.”

President Trump told reporters on Monday that he had “nothing to do with” the raid, saying it was “really up to the DOJ.” Sources said Attorney General Todd Blanche was aware of the search. At a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, the same day, Trump said Omar “comes from one of the worst countries anywhere on the planet” as the crowd chanted “Deport.”

House Democratic leaders Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar called the raid “deeply disturbing,” saying Trump’s “mass deportation machine has descended upon the home of a duly elected Member of Congress and her family” and promising to “deliver full accountability.” Minnesota Governor Tim Walz accused Trump of “abusing his power to go after political opponents weeks before an election.”

Few Republicans commented publicly. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) wrote that if fraud were proven, Omar “should be denaturalised and removed from this country.”

Electoral Stakes in Minnesota

Omar, seeking a fifth term representing Minnesota’s 5th congressional district, is heavily favored in a Minneapolis-based seat she won by 50 percentage points in 2024. Her challenger is Republican Dalia al-Aqidi.

The raid’s political ripples may matter more elsewhere. As The Nation reported, the timing coincides with Minnesota’s competitive Senate race between DFL nominee Peggy Flanagan and Republican Michele Tafoya. Veteran Democratic strategist David Axelrod questioned the timing, arguing it was “highly unlikely” the probe was “so serious and urgent that the government felt they needed to act publicly three weeks before the election instead of after” — unless stirring up Minnesota politics was the point.

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who is retiring, called the action “a transparent attempt to interfere in our elections” and said “Minnesota won’t stand for it.” Within hours of the raid, “Stand With Ilhan” posters appeared across Omar’s district and supporters rallied in Minneapolis.

What to Watch

Several open questions remain. It is not yet clear whether the two federal investigations intersect, what specific charges — if any — might follow, or how the subpoenaed relatives will respond to grand jury demands. The Justice Department has not detailed what guidance the Public Integrity Section provided before the search.

With voting already underway in Minnesota and three weeks until election day, the political and legal trajectories of both inquiries are likely to unfold simultaneously — and under intense scrutiny.