Emails show Omar’s staff requested a change to her recorded birth year
Emails reportedly show that Ilhan Omar’s congressional staff asked Minnesota’s Legislative Reference Library in May 2019 to change her recorded birth year from 1981 to 1982. The discrepancy matters because Omar has said she obtained US citizenship through her father’s naturalisation before she turned 18; critics say a 1981 birth year would make her too old to qualify in 2000. Omar denies wrongdoing and has described the investigation as politically motivated.
The report says federal investigators are examining possible false statements on immigration paperwork, and US Attorney Jeanine Pirro said her office is also reviewing Omar’s financial disclosures. Her 2025 filing initially listed assets shared with her husband at $6 million to $30 million, before she amended it to a much lower range, citing accounting errors; a House ethics watchdog had recommended dismissing allegations about the filings. Prosecutors have also subpoenaed Omar’s sister and at least one other relative, but subpoenas do not establish guilt. Omar denies allegations concerning her past marriage, and President Donald Trump said the matter was for the Justice Department.
- Emails reportedly show staff requested a birth-year change from 1981 to 1982.
- Federal investigators are examining immigration records and financial disclosures.
- Prosecutors subpoenaed Omar’s sister and another relative; this does not establish guilt.
New here? Start with this
Ilhan Omar is a US congresswoman from Minnesota who came to the United States as a refugee from Somalia. She has said she became a US citizen through her father’s naturalisation before she turned 18, a detail that has become part of questions about her immigration history.
The reported difference between two birth years matters because it could affect whether that account fits the timeline. Federal investigators are examining possible false statements on immigration paperwork, while Omar denies wrongdoing and says the investigation is politically motivated.
Officials have also reviewed Omar’s financial disclosures, which she amended after citing accounting errors. Prosecutors have issued subpoenas to some of her relatives; a subpoena is a legal demand for information and does not by itself show that anyone has committed an offence.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those seeking a thorough investigation argue that the reported request to alter an official birth-year record, alongside questions about immigration paperwork and financial disclosures, warrants independent scrutiny. If the records prove inaccurate or misleading, establishing how that happened matters for the integrity of public records and the same legal standards applying to elected officials as to others.
The case against
Omar and those concerned about the investigation’s fairness can argue that an email requesting a correction does not establish that she made a false statement or acted improperly, and that the financial filing was amended with an explanation after an ethics watchdog recommended dismissing related allegations. They may also see the scrutiny as politically motivated and warn that public suspicion should not be treated as proof, particularly when subpoenas and an ongoing investigation establish no guilt.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Somali-born Ilhan Omar’s birthday ‘cover-up’ laid bare as Jeanine Pirro digs into her millions and feds subpoena her family”.