The Justice Department's investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar has sparked constitutional questions about the denaturalization process and congressional removal that legal experts say Trump may have underestimated.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1451, citizenship obtained through naturalization can be revoked only through a court proceeding or after a criminal conviction, with the government carrying a heavy burden of proof. As of October 2026, no public denaturalization complaint or criminal indictment has been filed against the Minnesota Democrat, according to legal analysis published by All About Lawyer.

Constitutional Barriers to Removal

The investigation aims at revoking Omar's citizenship and potentially deporting her if investigators can prove she or her relatives lied during the immigration process, USA Today reported. However, the denaturalization process requires far more than an investigation or search warrant.

TIME magazine's analysis noted that Trump administration officials have accused Omar of immigration fraud without presenting any evidence. The denaturalization process rarely succeeds because it demands proof of material misrepresentation made with intent to deceive immigration authorities.

Even if denaturalization succeeded, removing a sitting member of Congress presents additional constitutional hurdles. The House of Representatives holds the sole power to expel its own members under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds vote.

Political Fallout and Trump's Response

Trump has repeatedly criticized Omar as a "little troublemaker" and questioned her right to criticize U.S. policy despite her constitutional protections as a naturalized citizen and elected representative. The Somali-born congresswoman has represented Minnesota's 5th congressional district since 2019.

Legal scholars emphasize that naturalized citizens possess identical constitutional rights to native-born Americans, including First Amendment protections for political speech. The investigation has drawn criticism from civil liberties advocates who view it as politically motivated retaliation against a vocal Trump critic.

The burden of proof in denaturalization cases falls entirely on the government, which must demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of fraud or willful misrepresentation. No timeline exists for when investigators might seek formal legal action, and Omar has denied any wrongdoing throughout the inquiry.