President Trump is pressing for Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) to be removed from Congress, arguing that questions about her name raise doubts about whether she is in the country legally and qualified to serve. Constitutional experts and at least one House Republican say the legal path to doing so would be far harder than the president suggests.
Trump has said Omar "used a fake name to be sworn in" and has called her "a little troublemaker." The Department of Justice is investigating Omar for potential immigration fraud, and federal authorities recently searched her Washington, D.C., home and removed 17 items, including phones, notebooks, a camera and a Somali phrase book for her children. Trump has suggested her legal name is different from the name she uses publicly, and he has said she "must immediately resign from Congress."
The naming question has been central to the dispute. A federal filing in the inquiry lists the congresswoman as "Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Abdullahi Omar." When a Fox Digital reporter asked her about her name, Omar replied, "Ilhan Abdullahi Omar," and confirmed it when pressed. The Clerk of the House lists her solely as "Ilhan Omar" on 15 financial disclosure reports dating back to 2018, before she entered Congress, and her name appeared the same way during her service in the Minnesota state legislature.
The president has said Omar "will not be legally allowed to be a member" of the House, but the decision is not his. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution gives each chamber of Congress final authority over whom it admits to its membership. Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said the House "has the prerogative to seat or not seat and to throw Members out if it so chooses," but added that "there ought to be good sound reasons for it." Griffith said such action would be extraordinary and should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances. Asked what would meet that standard, he paraphrased the late Justice Potter Stewart's line from a 1964 obscenity case: "I'll know it when I see it."
The Constitution sets only basic qualifications for the House: a candidate must be at least 25 years old and a citizen and resident of the state they represent. It says nothing else about credentials, and a member could face a criminal conviction and still be seated. The Constitution does allow the House and Senate to expel members by a two-thirds vote, but the House has expelled only six members in its history, the most recent being former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) in 2023. Expulsion generally requires a conviction or ironclad proof of wrongdoing, and Omar has not been convicted of a crime.
Legal obstacles could also complicate any federal effort. The "Speech or Debate Clause" in Article I, Section 6 grants lawmakers privileges tied to their official duties, and the House counsel would likely contest any attempt by prosecutors to obtain Omar's official House communication devices and documents. The arrangement means that, even if the Justice Department pursues its inquiry, reaching records tied to her congressional work would face significant resistance.
A more plausible route may come when the new Congress convenes in January, when members could raise objections to seating Omar. The precedent is a 1968 case involving Rep. Adam Clayton Powell (D-N.Y.), who faced a criminal investigation, and House Speaker John McCormack (D-Mass.) refused to seat him even though he met the other requirements. The Supreme Court later ruled in Powell v. McCormack that the House cannot exclude a member who meets the basic constitutional standards. Reports indicate that motions not to seat Omar, or other incoming progressive members who have made controversial statements about the United States, are possible, though the constitutional bar for doing so remains high.