Vance Says Ilhan Omar ‘Definitely’ Committed Immigration Fraud
Vice President JD Vance stated unequivocally in an interview with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that aired Friday that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) committed fraud to enter the United States and that she is a central figure in the mounting fraud among her Somali community that is being investigated and prosecuted in Minneapolis.
“Today, for the first time, we got 100% on the record confirmation that Rep. Ilhan Omar committed immigration fraud,” Johnson wrote on the X platform that included a clip from an interview with Rob Schmitt, a Newsmax TV host. “Lying on your immigration forms is an immediate denaturalization. Vice President JD Vance says DHS is exploring enforcement. Ilhan needs to be deported.”
Vance told Johnson: “Ilhan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America. … She has been at the center of a lot of the worst fraudsters in the Somali community.”
President Trump appointed Vance to be the first-ever ‘fraud czar,’ and in the short time he’s been at the job, he has uncovered tens of billions in fraudulent payments to ghost companies and individuals in California and Minnesota, both Democrat enclaves.
Meanwhile, earlier this month, Florida Republican Rep. Randy Fine was reportedly considering forcing a House vote to expel Omar, saying the potential action would be based on allegations that Omar married her brother as well as what he described as her “general embrace of Muslim terror.”
“I don’t think she should be a citizen, let alone a member of Congress,” Fine said. “I won’t send out fundraising emails calling for her expulsion. If I’m going to do that, you will see me bring the piece of paper. And I am actively considering that.”
The comments followed a fundraising email from Omar’s campaign calling for Fine to be expelled from Congress over past remarks in which he said Muslims should be “destroyed.”
Expelling a member of the House requires a two-thirds vote. With Republicans holding only a narrow majority, at least 85 Democrats would need to support the effort for it to succeed.
Omar has also faced renewed scrutiny in recent weeks related to fraud tied to the Somali community in her Minnesota district. The controversy centers on the Minnesota “Feeding Our Future” program, which authorities have linked to approximately $250 million in fraud connected to the MEALS Act passed during COVID lockdowns.
Omar supported the legislation and has defended her role. “Do you regret pushing for that bill, the MEALS Act? Do you think it led to the fraud?” Fox News reporter Nicholas Ballasy asked Omar earlier this month. “Absolutely not, it did help feed kids,” Omar replied.
Trump has also sharply criticized Omar in recent weeks.
Earlier this month, Trump referred to the congresswoman as “garbage” and raised broader concerns about large scale migration from Third World nations such as Somalia, according to NBC News.
“I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you, okay,” Trump said. “Somebody will say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct.’ I don’t care,” he added.
“I don’t want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason,” Trump continued.
“Her friends are garbage,” Trump added, referring to Omar. “These aren’t people that work. These aren’t people that say, ‘Let’s go, come on, let’s make this place great.’ These are people that do nothing but complain.”
Republican challenger John Nagel is accusing Omar of being closely linked to the $1 billion Feeding Our Future fraud scandal, which is based in her Minneapolis congressional district. Nagel, who is running against Omar in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, claims that legislation introduced by Omar contributed to the circumstances that allowed the fraud to take place.
“If you look at where the fraud is, it’s primarily her district, the district that I’m running in against her,” he said. “And it’s really odd to think that all the fraud just happened in a particular area.”
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.
