A top Senate Republican argued that if allegations against ‘Squad’ member Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., that she married her brother to enter the U.S. were true, she’d be breaking several laws.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, joined the long-standing scrutiny against Omar Friday after President Donald Trump revived the allegations during a rally pushing his affordability agenda in Pennsylvania earlier this week.

In a post on X responding to a White House social media account that charged, ‘Yes, [Omar] married her brother,’ Cruz listed a trio of federal and state laws the progressive lawmaker may have violated.

‘If this is true, then Omar faces criminal liability under three different statutes,’ Cruz said.

Cruz argued that Omar could have committed federal marriage fraud, which stipulates that it is a felony to knowingly enter into a marriage to evade immigration laws, and could lead to up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and deportation.

Omar was born in Somalia and came to the U.S. in 1995 after her family was granted asylum. She became a citizen in 2000. Omar, who is Muslim, has been married legally three times, first in a religious marriage to Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi in 2002, then to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009 before later divorcing and legally marrying Hirsi. In 2020, she married political aide Tim Mynett. 

Cruz noted that Omar could also be breaking Minnesota’s state incest law, a felony in the state punishable by jail time up to 10 years. He also contended that she could be liable for tax fraud, specifically if joint tax returns were filed while she was not legally married.

That violation would levy up to a $100,000 fine and up to three years in prison.

The Senate Republican’s legal analysis of the situation comes after Trump resurrected the unsubstantiated claims that Omar had married her brother for immigration purposes that have dogged the lawmaker since she entered politics nearly a decade ago. She has denied the allegations.

Still, Trump charged, ‘She married her brother to get in, right?’

‘If I married my sister to get my citizenship, do you think I’d last for about two hours or something less than that? She married her brother to get in,’ he said. ‘Therefore, she’s here illegally. She should get the hell out.’

Fox News Digital did not immediately hear back for comment from Omar’s office.

House Republicans have released a 111-page plan for reforming healthcare that they hope to vote on next week.

House GOP leadership aides also told reporters on Friday afternoon that they expected a vote on extending enhanced Obamacare subsidies to also happen next week as part of the amendment process to the final bill, called the ‘Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act.’ The subsidies have been the subject of fierce inter-party debate for Republicans.

‘We expect that there will be an amendment that I believe is being worked on, so the process will allow for that amendment,’ aides said.

The plan as-is includes provisions to codify association health plans, which allow small businesses and people who are self-employed to band together to purchase healthcare coverage plans, giving them access to greater bargaining power.

Republicans also plan to appropriate funding for cost-sharing reductions beginning in 2027, which are designed to lower out-of-pocket medical costs in the individual healthcare market. House GOP leadership aides said it would bring down the cost of premiums by 12%.

New transparency requirements for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are also in the legislation, aimed at forcing PBMs to be more upfront about costs to employers.

PBMs are third parties that act as intermediaries between pharmaceutical companies and those responsible for insurance coverage, often responsible for administrative tasks and negotiating drug prices.

PBMs have also been the subject of bipartisan ire in Congress, with both Republicans and Democrats accusing them of being part of a broken system to inflate health costs.

But the most divisive measure for Republicans is likely not yet fleshed out. 

A majority of House Republicans are against extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies, which were designed to get affordable health insurance for more Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Democrats voted to pass the enhanced subsidies in 2021 and extended them through 2022 when they controlled Congress.

A group of moderate House Republicans has joined Democrats now in vehemently pushing for those subsidies to be extended again, as millions of Americans face near-certain healthcare price hikes beginning in January.

Two separate bipartisan efforts have been launched to force a vote on extending the subsidies in some form. But any such push would require support from virtually all House Democrats to succeed, and their leaders have not given their blessing to either plan.

‘We’re going to evaluate every single good faith proposal. But it has to meaningfully provide certainty to the American people who are at risk of having their health care ripped away from them,’ House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told reporters on Friday.

But conservatives have warned they would not support any such extension unless paired with significant reforms to what they view as a long-broken system that fuels healthcare price inflation.

‘I think that would be a disastrous plan. I mean, we’ve clearly seen that Obamacare is the Titanic. It’s going down. I think throwing money after it is just going to be wasteful,’ House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told Fox News’ Chad Pergram on Friday.

President Donald Trump is being sued by a historic preservation group seeking to stop construction of his new White House ballroom.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit Friday against the Trump administration, arguing that it skipped mandatory reviews and failed to seek congressional approval before demolishing the East Wing of the White House.

‘No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else,’ the lawsuit stated. ‘And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in.’

Attorneys for the nonprofit argued Trump’s project ‘should be immediately halted’ and work on the 90,000-square-foot ballroom project should be paused until the reviews are completed.

When reached for comment, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle told Fox News Digital, ‘President Trump has full legal authority to modernize, renovate and beautify the White House – just like all of his predecessors did.’ 

Construction on the ballroom started in October, leading to the demolition of the White House’s historic East Wing. The project is being privately funded at an estimated cost of $300 million, up from a $200 million estimate in July when the project was unveiled.

The lawsuit claims the Trump administration failed to submit its demolition plans to the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts and Congress before construction began, arguing it is ‘depriving the public of its right to be informed.’

Additionally, the National Trust said the project violates numerous federal statutes, including the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, and claimed Trump circumvented the Constitution. 

‘The President, acting unilaterally, is wholly without constitutional authority to build or demolish anything on federal Grounds,’ the lawsuit stated.

The National Trust is requesting that a federal judge prevent the Trump administration from continuing work on the Ballroom project until the necessary federal commissions have reviewed and approved the project’s plans, an adequate environmental review has been conducted and Congress has authorized the ballroom’s construction.

The White House is expected to submit plans for Trump’s new ballroom to a federal planning commission before the end of the year.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

James Boasberg, the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and a Biden appointee, is a judicial disgrace. Boasberg’s recent rulings show he is unfit for the bench.

His repeated abuse of judicial power, whether undermining national security, releasing violent threats, or enabling unlawful surveillance, demonstrates a blatant disregard for the Constitution and a dangerous partisan agenda that disqualifies him from holding a lifetime appointment.

The time has come for the House of Representatives to do its job and impeach him.

The Constitution fixes the term of service for a judge as ‘during good Behaviour.’ The Constitution also dictates that impeachment is proper for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’  House Democrats in 2020 argued an official can get impeached for an abuse of power even without a statutory crime, setting an important precedent. The Constitution draws no distinction between the requirements for impeaching Executive Branch and Judicial Branch officials. What is good for the Executive Branch goose is just as good for the Judicial Branch gander, so the House should not hesitate to pursue a judicial impeachment.

Boasberg’s first act of misconduct occurred during a judicial conference. During the earliest stages of President Trump’s second term, Boasberg expressed the view to Chief Justice John Roberts that President Trump would not follow court orders. The President has not violated a court order. Boasberg’s claim had no basis and was plainly partisan. Boasberg baselessly told Chief Justice Roberts that Trump wouldn’t follow court orders, an unfounded partisan claim that undermines any expectation of impartiality.

Tren de Aragua is a barbaric international state-sponsored terrorist organization from Venezuela. MS-13 is an animalistic gang based in El Salvador.  Thousands of these gang members have come to the United States and perpetrated horrific acts. In March, the Trump administration deported hundreds of these barbarians to El Salvador, where they were sent to a maximum security prison. Boasberg issued a highly illegal and dangerous order directing the government to turn around planes as they were in international airspace, flying over the Gulf of America. In doing so, Boasberg exposed an ongoing military operation and gave an order that could have endangered Americans.

Why would we have security in place in the United States to deal with an unexpected influx of hundreds of dangerous terrorist, because some rabidly partisan judge just illegally opened his courtroom and stunningly attempted to sabotage an ongoing military operation? Rather, the security footprint was in El Salvador—hundreds of military, intel, and law-enforcement officials—where the terrorists were expected to land. There was also a serious risk to the personnel on the planes, given that they had a limited fuel supply and were in the middle of the Gulf of America. Boasberg showed a blatant disregard for these serious risks in issuing a highly illegal and dangerous order that he lacked jurisdiction to give.

The planes landed in El Salvador, and Boasberg began contempt proceedings. Even after a D.C. Circuit panel rejected his reasoning, Boasberg pressed ahead, ordering the administration to detail its deliberations that March day. The Justice Department is objecting, asserting that Boasberg is violating the foundational principle of separation of powers by having executive branch officials illegally divulge privileged internal discussions.

Moreover, Boasberg played a key role in Operation Arctic Frost—one of the most dangerous spy scandals in our history. Biden Special Counsel Jack Smith, a political scud missile sent to take out President Trump via lawfare with the full blessing of Biden and his Justice Department, subpoenaed the phone records of nearly a dozen U.S. senators. Boasberg issued a gag order preventing the phone companies from disclosing the information for a year. With no basis, he reasoned that disclosure could lead to destruction of evidence and witness intimidation. The relevant statute, 2 U.S.C. § 6628, explicitly requires disclosure to the Senate when such spying occurs. Boasberg now is attempting to weasel his way out of this jam, claiming that he did not know that Smith was seeking the senators’ records. Either Boasberg is lying, or he was an illegal rubber stamp who signed whatever Smith put under his nose. It is disgraceful, and Boasberg, citing the same separation-of-powers claim that the Justice Department is using in the contempt proceeding, refused to testify before the House Judiciary Committee last week.

Finally, Boasberg has shown a flippant concern for the security of President Trump. Nathalie Rose Jones is a deeply disturbed woman. She made a social media post threatening to disembowel President Trump. She admitted to the post when the Secret Service visited her. Then, Jones attended a protest and was spotted near the White House carrying a knife. Authorities arrested her, and even Democrat-appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, exercising the most basic level of common sense, ordered her held without bail. Then, Boasberg stepped in and overruled Upadhyaya, releasing Jones to go home with an electronic monitor.

Boasberg has not simply issued a ruling with which conservatives disagree. Boasberg instead has engaged in a pattern of impeachment-worthy behavior—extremely lawless and dangerous partisan rulings—that shows no signs of ending. He is bolder than ever, refusing to testify before Congress and proceeding merrily along with his absurd contempt vendetta. The House disgraced itself with two impeachments of President Trump. It is time for the House to redeem itself by bringing reason back to the impeachment process. Boasberg is a more-than-worthy candidate, and the House should impeach him before they go home for the year.

GOP House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said he plans to commence contempt of Congress proceedings against Bill and Hillary Clinton for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas related to its ongoing probe into the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. 

In July, a bipartisan House Oversight Subcommittee approved motions to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton and a slew of other high-profile political figures to aid its investigation looking into how the federal government handled Epstein’s sex trafficking case. 

The subpoenas were then sent out in early August, and the Clinton’s were scheduled to testify Dec. 17-18. 

‘It has been more than four months since Bill and Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed to sit for depositions related to our investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s horrific crimes. Throughout that time, the former president and former secretary of state have delayed, obstructed, and largely ignored the committee staff’s efforts to schedule their testimony,’ Comer said in a press release issued Friday evening.

‘If the Clintons fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January, the Oversight Committee will begin contempt of Congress proceedings to hold them accountable.’

Comer’s threats come as Democrats from the House Oversight Committee released a new batch of photos obtained from Epstein’s estate, which included further images of the disgraced financier with powerful figures like President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Thousands of images were reportedly released, with potentially more to come.

Other high-profile figures subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee include James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales.

In addition to testimony from these individuals, Comer and the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for all documents and communications pertaining to the case against Epstein.

In September, the committee released tens of thousands of pages of Epstein-related records in compliance with the subpoena, and the Oversight Committee indicated the DOJ would continue producing even more records as it works through needed redactions and other measures that must occur before they are released.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the U.S. plans to take control of the oil currently on a tanker off the coast of Venezuela that was seized by U.S. forces Wednesday. 

Trump ‘talks a lot about how he thinks the way to bring down prices for everything would be to bring down the cost of energy,’ Fox News Senior White House Correspondent Peter Doocy said Thursday. ‘Would he use this seized Venezuelan oil to try to help Americans with affordability here in the United States?’

Leavitt responded, ‘The vessel will go to a U.S. port, and the United States does intend to seize the oil. However, there is a legal process for the seizure of that oil and that legal process will be followed.’ 

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that the U.S. had seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, sharply escalating U.S. tensions with the nation. The tanker was seized for allegedly being used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi. 

‘The vessel is currently undergoing a forfeiture process. Right now, the United States currently has a full investigative team on the ground, on the vessel, and individuals on board the vessel are being interviewed, and any relevant evidence is being seized,’ Leavitt continued, adding that the oil on the tanker will go through a legal process before the U.S. claims the energy source. 

The tanker, called the Skipper, loaded an estimated 1.8 million barrels of oil earlier in December, before transferring an estimated 200,000 barrels just before its seizure, Reuters reported.

The oil on the tanker is likely worth $60 million to more than $100 million, based on current average oil prices. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for any additional comment on the estimated price tag of the oil but did not immediately receive a reply. 

The U.S. military has carried out strikes on suspected drug trafficking boats near Venezuela since September as part of Trump’s mission to end the flow of drugs into the nation. There have been at least 22 strikes on suspected narcotraffickers near Venezuela, killing 87, since September. 

Doocy pressed Leavitt during the press conference on whether the U.S.’ strikes and heightened tensions with Venezuela, dubbed Operation Southern Spear, are ‘about drugs or is it about oil?’

‘The Trump administration is focused on doing many things in the Western Hemisphere,’ Leavitt responded. ‘The president has taken a new approach that has not been taken by any administration for quite some time to actually focus on what’s going on in our own backyard. And there are two things that are very important to this administration.’

The boat strikes are viewed as part of a U.S. pressure campaign on Venezuela likely aimed to not only curb the flow of drugs, but also to oust dictatorial President Nicolás Maduro as leader of the oil-rich nation. 

‘Number one, stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the United States of America, which we know has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans,’ she continued, before adding that Trump is ‘fully committed to effectuating this administration’s sanction policy. And that’s what you saw, and the world saw take place yesterday.’

‘With respect to the oil and what happened yesterday, the Department of Justice requested and was approved for a warrant to seize a vessel because it’s a sanctioned shadow vessel known for carrying black market sanctioned oil to the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), which, you know, is a sanctioned entity,’ she continued. Venezuela is already subject to extensive U.S. sanctions, but was historically a major crude-oil supplier for the U.S.

Leavitt added that the administration will remain committed to the ‘president’s sanction policies and the sanction policies of the United States.’

‘We’re not going to stand by and watch sanctioned vessels sail the seas with black market oil. The proceeds of which will fuel narco-terrorism of rogue and illegitimate regimes around the world,’ she said. 

Fox News Digital’s Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.