House Republicans have publicly cheered on the Trump administration’s investigation of Rep. Ilhan Omar. But underneath the posturing, the raid raises thorny nonpartisan questions about how aggressively Congress wants to defend itself from encroaching federal prosecutors.
The Department of Homeland Security investigators who raided Omar’s Washington home last week were searching for evidence related to the Minnesota Democrat’s immigration history. But they also emerged in possession of her personal phone, which likely includes a trove of records related to Omar’s work at the Capitol — records that both parties have a strong interest in keeping private.
Lawmakers use their cellphones and computers to communicate with aides about upcoming votes, committee hearings and drafting or filing legislation. They text and email colleagues about the work of the House. And they talk to constituents, advisers, attorneys and experts about crucial congressional decisions. The Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause makes such material absolutely immune from scrutiny by federal prosecutors, with few exceptions.
The founders adopted those protections to ensure the executive branch could not use its law enforcement power to punish or coerce opponents in Congress. That principle has united Democrats and Republicans, even in this hyperpolarized era.
Speaker Mike Johnson has yet to weigh in on the speech-or-debate implications of the Omar raid, but the House has sometimes taken weeks or months to articulate a position in other recent investigations.
A letter from Omar’s attorneys to the Justice Department, reviewed by POLITICO, suggested that the magistrate judge who approved the search ordered investigators to contact the House’s top lawyer, Matthew Berry, giving him a chance to intervene on behalf of the institution. Berry’s office has been in contact with Trump administration counterparts in recent days, according to two people familiar with the investigation.
The people, who were granted anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the probe publicly, say investigators have not yet accessed Omar’s phone. If they choose to attempt to access it, they must first give Omar a chance to review its contents and assert speech-or-debate protections, with a court ultimately deciding which materials investigators may access.
A representative for the Justice Department declined to comment. Representatives for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Johnson and Omar did not respond to requests for comment.
The administration’s targeting of Omar comes amid a series of actions the Trump-led Justice Department has taken against Democratic members of Congress: a failed effort to indict Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with several House members, over comments encouraging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders; criminal charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver for allegedly assaulting an ICE officer during a visit to a New Jersey detention facility.
It also comes amid continued GOP outrage over former special counsel Jack Smith's decision to gather some material related to Republican members of Congress in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
The House’s official legal positions are determined by an obscure five-member body known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG. The BLAG is made up of the speaker, majority leader, majority whip, minority leader and minority whip. That panel, always controlled by the majority party, charts the House’s course in court. And while most of the BLAG’s recent decisions have broken 3-2 along partisan lines, speech-or-debate issues have sometimes resulted in unanimous agreement.
Berry has seen this movie before: In 2022, federal investigators seized the phone of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to scrutinize his role in President Donald Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election. The Justice Department’s aggressive action drew a bipartisan response from House leaders, who demanded access to the sealed proceedings to ensure prosecutors didn’t cross any constitutional lines. And shortly after Republicans returned to the majority in 2023, Jeffries and Minority Whip Katherine Clark joined GOP leaders and supported Berry’s filing of a 36-page brief demanding robust protection of materials seized from lawmakers’ cellphones.
That case resulted in a new precedent that treats lawmakers’ personal cellphones as an extension of their private offices. It took more than a year of litigation before those investigators, later led by Smith, were able to access a subset of Perry’s records that were deemed to fall outside of Congress’ constitutional protections.
Stan Brand, a former House counsel who represented Perry in the legal battle against Smith’s team, noted that the backdrop of Omar situation is strikingly similar to one of the most significant constitutional clashes between the House and Justice Department: the 2006 raid of then-Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s congressional office by George W. Bush-era prosecutors. At the time, GOP House leaders joined Democrats in outrage over the raid.
Notably, the DHS investigators who carried out last week’s search presented Omar with a “speech or debate” waiver that she refused to sign, according to the letter from Omar’s attorneys. Courts have expressed skepticism about whether individual members can waive protections that were intended to safeguard the separation of powers for the entire institution.
“This is just one more example of excess in the Department of Justice under both Democrats and Republicans,” Brand said.
Senate Republicans have also accused the Justice Department under President Joe Biden of violating their speech-or-debate protections when Smith subpoenaed their phone records — which don’t include the content of texts or emails — from third-party telecom companies like Verizon. One GOP senator is suing Smith and the Justice Department over the matter, and DOJ has since adopted new policies for third-party subpoenas related to members of Congress.
Riley Rogerson and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.
