Gutfeld Questions Lack Of Accountability For Ilhan Omar Amid Fraud Allegations
Criticism of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar is intensifying again, with media figures and political leaders raising questions about past allegations and whether sufficient scrutiny has been applied.
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld questioned what he described as a lack of accountability during a recent segment, asking why Omar has not faced more serious consequences over various claims that have circulated publicly.
“Who’s protecting her? Why are they protecting her?” Gutfeld said on The Five, referencing a range of allegations that have been widely discussed but remain disputed or unproven.
Gutfeld also referenced longstanding claims regarding Omar’s past personal relationships and financial disclosures, issues that have been the subject of political attacks for years. Those claims have been denied by Omar, and no criminal charges have been brought against her related to those allegations.
Omar has repeatedly pushed back on accusations of wrongdoing, characterizing them as politically motivated attacks. Investigations and reviews tied to her campaign finances in prior years resulted in findings related to reporting violations but did not lead to criminal prosecution.
The renewed criticism comes as President Donald Trump also weighed in publicly, targeting Omar in a recent social media post. Trump accused her of involvement in broader fraud issues without providing evidence and called for legal consequences.
Omar has not directly responded to the latest round of criticism, though she has previously dismissed similar claims as baseless and rooted in partisan opposition.
The broader debate reflects ongoing political divisions, particularly around high-profile members of Congress who have become frequent targets in media and campaign rhetoric. Supporters of Omar argue that repeated allegations without formal charges demonstrate a pattern of political attacks rather than substantiated wrongdoing.
Critics, meanwhile, continue to argue that questions surrounding her past statements, financial disclosures and associations warrant closer examination.
Despite the rhetoric, no current federal charges have been filed against Omar, and she continues to serve in Congress representing Minnesota’s 5th District.
The issue underscores a larger dynamic in Washington, where political figures increasingly face public scrutiny through media and social platforms, often before any formal investigative conclusions are reached.
As the debate continues, the divide between political messaging and verified findings remains central to how such controversies are understood by the public.
U.S. Rep. Randy Fine is signaling a potential vote to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar from Congress as he simultaneously pushes new legislation aimed at banning dual citizenship for members of Congress. The Florida Republican said the effort to remove Omar could move forward depending on the outcome of ongoing inquiries into allegations tied to her past.
“We’re waiting to get the data on the brother marriage thing, which I think is coming,” Fine said during an interview. “If it turns out that that is actually the reality, will there be a vote on the floor to expel this woman from Congress? Absolutely,” he said.
Fine’s comments come as he introduces the “Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act,” a proposal that would require members of the House and Senate to hold allegiance only to the United States. He framed the legislation as part of a broader push to ensure that elected officials are fully committed to American interests.
“The bottom line is that you can’t serve two masters,” Fine said. “If you’re going to serve in the United States Congress, you should serve America ONLY,” he said.
Supporters of the bill argue that dual citizenship presents a potential conflict of interest, particularly for lawmakers with access to classified information. Rep. Andy Harris said the concern extends beyond voting decisions to national security risks tied to sensitive intelligence.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
