The New York Times editorial board has come to the defense of Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat under investigation over potential immigration fraud, drawing sharp criticism from Fox News opinion columnist Gregg Jarrett. The Friday editorial, titled "Trump Is Turning to an Old Tool of Authoritarian Repression," argued that the revocation of a political opponent's citizenship is a tool historically used by authoritarian leaders, and that the administration's actions against Omar fit that pattern.
The editorial stated that the allegations against Omar are not the main issue. Its authors wrote, "We do not pretend to know whether the allegations have merit." Jarrett seized on that admission, arguing that the board avoided engaging with the facts of the case. He wrote that potential crimes such as false statements, fraud, conspiracy and obstruction of justice are not trivial, and that the Times was effectively arguing that a Democratic member of Congress should be shielded from suspected crimes because the president who is pursuing them is one she opposes.
Jarrett also noted that the investigation's origins predate the current administration, having begun under President Joe Biden, a detail he said the editorial overlooked. He challenged the board's warning that "no naturalized citizen will be safe," arguing that naturalized citizens have nothing to fear if they were truthful during the application process. He pointed to a federal statute, passed about 120 years ago, that allows citizenship to be revoked in cases of fraud or false statements, and said that lawmakers, not the president, created that authority.
The case has drawn attention to developments in the investigation. According to the reporting cited in the broader coverage, federal agents raided Omar's Washington, D.C. home, and a judge in the District of Columbia authorized the search on a finding of probable cause. Agents seized a phone, and the warrant and evidence have raised questions about Omar's identity, how her citizenship was obtained and whether she entered into a sham marriage with her brother. Omar has denied doing anything wrong or violating any law. In a recent interview she responded to the marriage question by saying, "Not to my knowledge," a reply Jarrett described as adding to suspicion rather than dispelling it.
Omar's supporters have pushed back on the investigation, and former President Barack Obama has backed her publicly, accusing the Trump administration of appalling targeting in a lengthy statement. The dispute places the editorial board's framing of the matter against critics who argue that the legal process should be allowed to proceed regardless of party affiliation. Jarrett closed by arguing that Lady Justice is blind and that the government has an obligation to investigate suspected wrongdoing whenever evidence arises, regardless of which party holds power.