Trump Escalates Criticism of Ilhan Omar While Aboard Air Force One
What began earlier this month as a viral White House jab at Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has now turned into a broader campaign offensive, with President Donald Trump doubling down on his criticism of the Somali-born congresswoman and the Somali refugee community in the United States.
Omar said during an October appearance on The Dean Obeidallah Show that she was not worried about losing her U.S. citizenship or being sent back to Somalia, where she was born.
“I have no worry, I don’t know how they’d take away my citizenship and like deport me,” Omar said. “But I don’t even know why that’s such a scary threat. I’m not the 8-year-old who escaped war anymore. I’m grown, my kids are grown. I could go live wherever I want.”
On Nov. 10, the White House posted on X a 2024 photo of Trump waving from a McDonald’s drive-thru window, replying to a clip in which Omar said she was unconcerned about being deported.
The photo — taken during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania — quickly circulated online and was widely interpreted as a taunting “good-bye” message aimed at the Minnesota lawmaker.
Now, the feud has reignited. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump referenced the allegation that Omar had entered the U.S. through a fraudulent marriage.
“She supposedly came into our country by marrying her brother,” he said. “If that’s true, she shouldn’t be a congresswoman, and we should throw her the hell out of the country.”
The president also broadened his remarks to criticize Somali immigration overall.
“Somalis have caused us a lot of trouble, and they cost us a lot of money,” Trump said. “What the hell are we paying Somalia for? We have Ilhan Omar who does nothing but complain about our Constitution and our country! We’re not taking their people anymore — in fact, we’re sending them back.”
Trump has often accused Omar of being “anti-American,” previously telling her and other progressive “Squad” members to “go back” to their “broken and crime-infested countries.” Omar responded earlier this month by calling Trump a “lying buffoon” and saying his story about Somalia’s president refusing to take her back was fabricated.
The White House has signaled that it will not walk back the president’s latest statements. A senior aide said Trump was “reminding voters that America’s generosity should never be repaid with contempt.”
Omar’s family fled Somalia’s civil war in 1991 and spent several years in a Kenyan refugee camp before settling in the United States. She was elected to Congress in 2018, becoming one of the first Muslim women and the first Somali-American to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The renewed confrontation underscores the political tension between Trump and radical members of the “Squad.” It comes amidst growing concerns about immigration policy and the vetting of immigrants in the aftermath of an Afghan refugee’s shooting of two National Guard members over the Thanksgiving holiday.
Supreme Court Likely To Revive Obama-Era Rule on Asylum-Seekers
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to reevaluate a longstanding immigration policy that denied asylum seekers entry at ports along the southern U.S. border. President Donald Trump requested the justices to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that deemed the policy unlawful.
The Biden administration terminated the practice referred to by the government as “metering.” The Trump administration seeks to maintain flexibility while intensifying its immigration enforcement efforts.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer stated, “The Constitution assigns the authority to regulate the border to the political branches, rather than the judiciary. The decision below improperly undermines Congress’s authority to establish asylum policy, referencing its ties to active policies. It also ‘significantly encroaches upon the executive branch’s authority to regulate the nation’s borders.'”
The nonprofit immigrant rights organization, Al Otro Lado, in conjunction with 13 asylum-seekers who initiated the lawsuit central to the dispute in 2017, expressed their endorsement of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and are ready to uphold it before the Supreme Court.
“The government’s turnback policy constituted an unlawful strategy to evade these obligations by physically obstructing asylum-seekers at ports of entry and hindering their ability to cross the border for protection,” stated attorneys for Al Otro Lado and the asylum-seekers. “At-risk families, children, and adults escaping persecution were left in hazardous circumstances, where they encountered violent attacks, abduction, and mortality.”
Sauer stated, “According to the rationale of the decision below, [Customs and Border Patrol] was prohibited from obstructing the entry of an individual who arrived at the border without a prior appointment.” An alien could assert that he has arrived ‘in the United States,’ thereby necessitating government inspection and processing of his asylum application, which would enable him to circumvent the queue.
The asylum-seekers contested the government’s petition, asserting that the appellate court’s decision pertained solely to a specific group of migrants.
Kelsi Brown Corkran, an attorney with the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, stated, “While the current administration’s border policies are subject to impending legal challenges, none of the plaintiffs’ assertions in those cases hinge on the issue raised by the petition here.” The court’s determination of the issue at hand would consequently constitute little more than an advisory opinion.
The Justice Department refrained from commenting on the Supreme Court’s decision to consider its appeal. The White House directed inquiries regarding the reinstatement of the metering policy to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not respond to questions concerning the potential revival of the policy by the Trump administration.
“Our attorneys have unequivocally articulated that the Trump administration has consistently upheld the explicit interpretation of federal law and fundamental logic in this matter from the outset,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated in an email that contained a link to the government’s petition. “We anticipate presenting our case to the Supreme Court.”
The Immigration and Nationality Act stipulates that individuals in the United States, irrespective of their location, have the right to apply for asylum if they can establish a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.
In 2016, in response to an influx of Haitian asylum-seekers at San Ysidro port of entry in Southern California, the Obama administration mandated that border agents refuse entry to newly arriving migrants.
Two years later, the Department of Homeland Security formally instituted the policy, supplying all southern border ports with “metering guidance.”
Under the 2018 policy, border agents were assigned the responsibility of identifying prospective asylum-seekers and actively obstructing their entry into U.S. territory.
In 2019, the Trump administration implemented a new barrier for migrants, declaring that individuals who traversed one or more countries prior to reaching the U.S. would be disqualified from asylum unless they had first pursued protection in at least one of those transit countries.
A lower court has certified a class for asylum seekers who arrived prior to Trump’s transit rule, issuing an injunction that reinstates claims previously denied under the 2019 policy.
The class facilitated the advancement of the case subsequent to the Biden administration’s abrogation of the metering policy in 2021. The transit rule was ultimately rescinded in 2023.
In 2022, the lower court issued a definitive ruling, imposing a permanent injunction that barred the government from enforcing the asylum prohibitions against that particular group. The court confirmed that individuals in this category possessed the right to seek asylum in accordance with prior policy directives.
The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling, arguing that alternative solutions, like the Biden-era CBP One app designed for asylum appointment scheduling for migrants, could be at risk.
Rubio Fires Officer Over Hidden Relationship with Daughter of CCP Official
A U.S. State Department foreign service officer has been fired after being caught on hidden camera admitting to a secret romantic relationship with the daughter of a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) affiliate—a connection he failed to disclose to U.S. security officials, according to statements.
The officer, identified as Daniel Choi, was terminated following an internal review ordered by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and approved by President Donald Trump, the department confirmed.
The decision came after footage surfaced from an O’Keefe Media Group (OMG) undercover investigation in which Choi acknowledged that his girlfriend’s father was “straight-up Communist Party” and that she “could have been a spy.”
“I defied my government for love,” Choi said in the secretly recorded video published by OMG, in which he discussed knowingly concealing the relationship from State Department officials despite being required to report any close personal contact with foreign nationals.
A State Department spokesperson told reporters that, to their knowledge, this is the first time an officer has been terminated under the authority granted by Executive Order 14211, which President Trump signed earlier this year to strengthen accountability within the diplomatic corps.
The order states that “all officers or employees charged with implementing the foreign policy of the United States must, under Article II, do so under the direction and authority of the President,” adding that “failure to faithfully implement the President’s policy is grounds for professional discipline, including separation.”
In a statement announcing the dismissal, the department said: “The Foreign Service Officer admitted to concealing a romantic relationship with a Chinese national, whom he said on camera ‘could have been a spy.’ He also said that her father was ‘straight-up Communist Party.’ The officer was required to report this contact to Department security officials, but said, ‘I defied my government for love.’ Accordingly, the Secretary recommended that the officer be separated for failing to faithfully implement the President’s foreign policy.”
Choi’s case underscores growing concerns within the U.S. government over Chinese intelligence-gathering through personal and professional relationships with American officials.
For years, counterintelligence experts have warned that Beijing uses romantic entanglements, financial incentives, and academic ties to collect sensitive information from U.S. personnel.
“Romantic and social connections remain one of the most exploited vectors in Chinese espionage,” said a former senior intelligence official familiar with State Department security procedures. “An unreported relationship like this represents a massive vulnerability, no matter how innocent it may appear.”
While the State Department declined to detail the internal investigation, officials confirmed that Choi’s failure to report the relationship violated long-standing security protocols designed to protect against coercion or compromise by foreign entities.
Foreign service officers are required to immediately disclose any “close and continuing contact” with foreign nationals who may have ties to hostile governments.
Choi reportedly told the undercover journalist that his girlfriend’s father was either a provincial or federal education minister within the CCP structure, adding, “She could have been a spy — I don’t even know.”
After the video’s release, Secretary Rubio moved quickly to recommend termination, citing national security concerns and the need to enforce accountability across diplomatic ranks.
May you like
“This is a clear case of misconduct and potential compromise,” a State Department official said on background. “Every officer takes an oath to serve the United States and to uphold our security standards. No one is above that.”
Rubio has taken a hard line on countering Chinese influence within U.S. institutions since becoming Secretary of State, tightening vetting procedures for foreign contacts and expanding background checks for personnel stationed in East Asia and Washington-based policy roles.
