Rep. Ilhan Omar offered a much more qualified answer than she has previously when asked whether she was related to her former husband, telling MS NOW host Chris Hayes, “Not to my knowledge.” The response differed sharply from the categorical denunciations that she gave before. During the same exchange, Omar continued to call accounts supporting the allegation “insane.” But when Hayes pressed her directly about a possible family connection, she hedged her answer.
The exchange aired Wednesday, October 21st, on “All In with Chris Hayes,” during an interview following the federal search of Omar’s Washington, D.C., home. The Minnesota Democrat discussed the investigation involving her family’s immigration history and denied wrongdoing. Hayes also raised the longstanding allegation involving her former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, whom she married in 2009 and divorced in 2017.
Hayes began by discussing President Donald Trump’s repeated references to the marriage allegation and Omar’s previous rejection of it. He asked her to identify her former husband and explain how the accusation originated. “Who was this man that was your husband? When did they start saying that he was your brother? Why?”
In the interview excerpt shared by Townhall, Omar blamed an online post. “It started with the Somali blog that I don’t know if it still exists, but somebody put in there that you know that he had to have been my brother or something to that effect,” she said. She continued, “And right-wing conspiracy theorists in Minneapolis got a hold of it.”
Omar addressed accounts from people who allegedly said she had introduced Elmi as a relative. “And they just kind of went and like found random people who were like, she introduced us, you know, she introduced him to us and said he was her brother, which is, you know, insane,” she said. “I mean, I don’t, I don’t know those people that they talk about.”
Hayes followed up by asking whether they were related at all. “You were not related to him at all,” he asked, before they spoke over each other with Ilhan saying, “Not that” and Hayes continuing with a question about a “weird kernel of truth” behind the allegation. Omar replied, “Not to my knowledge,” before Hayes moved on to a different line of questioning.
Her earlier public statements used considerably more categorical language. In October 2018, the Associated Press reported that Omar had dismissed allegations about her family as “disgusting lies.” The AP also reported that she broadly denied the accusations but declined to provide documents or answer specific questions when pressed. Those denials came during her campaign for Congress, years before Wednesday’s interview.
"*" indicates required fields
The newer wording leaves an opening that a categorical denial closes: the possibility of later saying she was unaware of a family relationship, should one be established. Federal agents reportedly collected DNA from her trash, and relatives have received grand jury subpoenas as investigators examine possible immigration fraud. Those steps may help investigators determine whether Elmi is her brother—and, if so, what Omar knew when she married him.
Watch Omar’s exchange with Hayes here:
Knowledge and intent would matter in evaluating a potential marriage-fraud allegation, but the precise issue is the purpose of the marriage. The Justice Department’s explanation of federal law identifies the offense as *knowingly* entering a marriage to evade immigration laws. Omar’s claim to a lack of awareness about a family connection wouldn’t automatically defeat such a charge. Prosecutors would still have to establish the required elements, including an immigration-evasion purpose; proof of a biological relationship alone wouldn’t establish that purpose.
Meanwhile, prosecutors say the search warrant has not been fully executed, leaving open the possibility of further raids or searches without specifying what remains to be done. As The Daily Wire reported, the Justice Department has asked to postpone responding to requests to unseal the warrant records until its execution is complete. Prosecutors proposed updating the court within 30 days afterward, followed by discussions about how the disclosure requests should proceed. Alternatively, they requested until November 9th to respond to the requests for access to the sealed records.
Featured image credit: screengrab from the embedded video.