On Thursday, leftist Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) told a reporter to “f*** off” after he asked her about whether more Democrats should be vouching for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant and alleged MS-13 gang member deported to his home country of El Salvador.

Daily Caller News Foundation reporter Myles Morell shared a video on social media in which he introduced himself as Omar, along with a couple of other people, as they walked outdoors in his direction.

Today I tried to ask @Ilhan a question on behalf of The @DailyCaller News Foundation and she told me to “F**k off” twice.

That was very unprofessional of her. Our elected officials should not be acting this way. pic.twitter.com/8wPu566ZTt

— Myles Morell (@MylesMorell) May 1, 2025

“Do you think more of your Democratic colleagues should be traveling to El Salvador to advocate on behalf of Abrego Garcia?” Morell asked.

“I think you should f*** off,” Omar replied as she and the others continued to walk down a sidewalk.

“I’m sorry, what congresswoman?” Morell asked.

Omar said, “You should f*** off.”

“Who should?” Morell pressed.

“You,” Omar said.

Morell asked, “Why me?”

Omar did not answer as she walked away. But one of the people she was with, apparently a staffer, told Morell they were “not taking any more questions right now.”

The exchange happened after Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and some other Democrats had travelled to El Salvador to push for the return of Abrego Garcia, whose lawyers have denied he is part of MS-13 — despite documents indicating otherwise.

On Wednesday, The Bulwark reported House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was urging fellow Democrats to stop the trips to El Salvador amid an intra-party debate on how intensely they should clash with President Donald Trump on deportations. Jeffries later denied the report.

In posting the video to X, Morell said of his exchange with Omar: “That was very unprofessional of her. Our elected officials should not be acting this way.”

Omar responded to a post from Libs of TikTok that contained the video.

“I said what I said. You and all your miserable trolls can f*** off,” she said.

Others commented on the video, which has gone viral on social media, with many criticizing Omar for her reaction to Morell.

“Reminder: Democrats say Donald Trump has lowered the tone of political rhetoric….” said British broadcaster Piers Morgan.

“This woman has no class, no gratitude to America, and no honor. Truly a disgrace to the US Congress,” said Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.

“Nasty woman,” said conservative commentator Tomi Lahren.

“This is an unhinged response to an entirely fair question. I think part of it is that Democrats are not used to being asked non-softball questions by Capitol Hill reporters,” said Washington Free Beacon investigative reporter Chuck Ross.

Omar, a member of the leftist Squad, is no stranger to controversy. She was kicked off the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2023 for comments she made about Israel. Last year, Omar faced a censure threat for suggesting that some Jewish students were “pro-genocide,” but it did not come to pass.

U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. ruled on Thursday that President Donald Trump and his administration could not use the Alien Enemies Act to uphold the deportations of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador.

Rodriguez stated that the Act — first enacted in 1798 — did not apply unless the United States was facing an “armed, organized attack,” and argued that the influx of illegal alien gang members and terrorists did not meet that particular qualification.

“The Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful. [Administration officials] do not possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the Proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country,” he wrote in his decision.

The Trump administration argued that Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua, a “designated Foreign Terrorist Organization[,] . . . is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States,” and based on that, “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”

Rodriguez disagreed, however, but he did leave room for recourse: he also noted in his ruling that once the court determined the definition of “invasion” or “incursion,” the administration would be free to present any evidence they believed showed such and “invasion” or “incursion” had, in fact, occurred.

Some issues that Petitioners raise present a political question beyond judicial review. Once a court defines the parameters of what conduct constitutes an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” for purposes of the AEA, the court leaves to the Executive Branch the determination of whether such conduct has been perpetrated, attempted, or threatened. For example, a court may decide that one aspect of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” requires physical entry into the United States.

In other words, a court may conclude that no invasion or predatory incursion has occurred or has been threatened if the alleged conduct does not involve the entry of individuals into the country. The court having determined the meaning of these terms, it is left to the Executive Branch to determine whether a foreign nation or government has threatened or perpetrated activity that includes such an entry. As to this decision, the court may not delve into whether the Executive Branch possesses sufficient support for its conclusion, or whether the court agrees with the Executive Branch’s determinations.