Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has once again found herself at the center of national debate, stirring the pot with her recent comments about hate in America. In a video that caught fire online, Omar expressed, “There is a lot of hate in this country for Muslims, Black people, Black women! Severe hate for immigrants! I fit them all.” Her pride in her Somali roots was clear as she declared, “I was born in Somalia. I am proud of that!” This statement was met with a surge of criticism, particularly from those frustrated by her perceived victimhood narrative. One tweet summed it up sharply: “Get this Somalian who married her brother out of here. Prove to the world we are a nation of LAWS.” This reflects widespread concern over Omar’s stance and her frequent framing of American society as inherently hostile to her identity.
Omar’s words come against a backdrop of increasing tension with Texas Governor Greg Abbott. On November 19, 2025, Abbott leveled strong accusations against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood, labeling them as “foreign terrorist organizations.” He emphasized the need for law enforcement to investigate Islamic mediation practices in Texas, aiming to uphold the integrity of American law. “Legal disputes in Texas must be decided based on American law rooted in the fundamental principles of American due process,” Abbott stated, rejecting any notion that Sharia law should have a say in legal matters.
Despite the governor’s firm stance, critics argue that his move is politically motivated and lacks solid legal grounding. Notably, neither CAIR nor the Muslim Brotherhood is listed as a terrorist organization by the federal government. Abbott’s claims might rally support among certain voters who share his concerns over foreign influence, yet they have sparked legal challenges. CAIR filed a lawsuit against Abbott on November 20, arguing that his proclamation violated their constitutional rights. Attorney Charlie Swift remarked, “Governor Abbott’s unconstitutional proclamation undermines the very foundational notions of due process… and it must not stand.”
On social media, Omar wasted no time firing back at Abbott, calling him a “bigot” who “should have no place in elected office.” She claimed that the normalization of anti-Muslim rhetoric was “vile,” showcasing her inclination to defend her community passionately amid political attacks.
Interestingly, Abbott’s criticisms of Islamic mediation are not unique; he referenced similar systems from other religious backgrounds, such as Catholic and Jewish communities, as evidence that his concerns are broader than just one group. Yet he posited that Islamic tribunals aim to replace U.S. legal standards rather than simply work within them. Critics pointed out that he has not provided the evidence to back up these assertions. U.S. law recognizes voluntary religious arbitration as permissible, as long as it does not conflict with public policy.
Abbott’s stance found favor among specific segments of his constituency who see such measures as essential in protecting American laws. His rhetoric aligns with those who have long voiced fears about the implications of cultural diversity on traditional legal systems, contributing to the growing division in American politics concerning immigration and religious rights.
Meanwhile, just days later, former President Donald Trump declared plans to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somali immigrants in Minnesota, citing unfounded connections between this group and crime. His comments about rising Somali gang activity and fraudulent activities echoed grievances he has expressed about Omar herself: “This is a menace and will not be tolerated.” Even though the TPS designation affects only 705 individuals nationwide, state leaders contested Trump’s assertions, noting that there is no legal framework allowing such a targeted revocation. Omar responded directly, asserting her identity and community: “I am a citizen—and so are the majority of Somalis in America.”
This is not the first time Omar’s remarks about American society being unfriendly towards her identity have drawn backlash. Previous comments linking President Trump’s hateful rhetoric to incidents of violence have resulted in criticism. Her defense of other progressive lawmakers against slurs of racism illustrates her role as a vocal ally but also a polarizing figure.
Texas Representative Suleman Lalani challenged Abbott directly, suggesting that such rhetoric is a distraction from real policy issues in areas like education and healthcare. “He wants you to think that Muslims and other minorities are the enemy,” Lalani stated, though his claims lacked substantial data.
On the flip side, organizations like CAIR have faced scrutiny. Although the FBI has drawn attention to CAIR’s activities—citing them as unindicted co-conspirators in a terrorism financing investigation—they have not been charged with any wrongdoing. This history gives critics leverage to cast doubt on their credibility.
As the legal battle over Abbott’s actions unfolds, questions linger about the limits of state authority in matters of immigration and terrorism designations. The political fallout from these conflicts reveals deeper societal divides. This case illustrates the delicate balance between religious freedoms and the perception of legal integrity in America—a nation more divided than ever regarding community-based legal cultures.
Jaylani Hussein of CAIR-Minnesota summed it all up: “This is a political attack on the Somali and Muslim community driven by Islamophobic and hateful rhetoric.”
For many, the real question remains whether the U.S. legal system can embrace the diverse legal traditions present in its communities while upholding the principles of fairness and justice. The unfolding debate reflects a nation grappling not only with its laws but also with its identity. As one user quipped in response to the outburst against Omar, “Prove to the world we are a nation of LAWS.”
"*" indicates required fields
