WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Under the Radar - Episode 41

Episode Date: October 18, 2026

This week on “Under the Radar,” hear about the Trump DOJ's investigation of a sitting congresswoman, a Supreme Court case that might restrain the power of rogue judges, an executive order hoping to lower the price of diesel fuel, and more. I’m your host, Luke Miller, and on this show we’ll cover the news you didn’t catch this week from the mainstream media. While they’re covering the President’s latest tweets, here you can hear about the new legislation, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions that affect you. Welcome to “Under the Radar.”

This is Under the Radar on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. Now, here's your host, Luke Miller. This week on Under the Radar, hear about the Trump DOJ's investigation of a sitting congresswoman, a Supreme Court case that might restrain the power of rogue judges, an executive order hoping to lower the price of diesel fuel, and more. I'm your host, Luke Miller, and on this show, we'll cover the news you didn't catch this week from the mainstream media. While they're covering the president's latest tweets, here you can hear about the new legislation, executive orders,

and Supreme Court decisions that affect you. Welcome to Under the Radar. The first piece of news I have for you this week is a DOJ investigation into Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. Omar represents the state of Minnesota, and she has clashed heads with the Trump administration on a lot, particularly the attempts from the Trump administration to crack down on fraud in Minnesota, particularly Somali fraud. Ilhan Omar is herself a Somalian immigrant to Minnesota, and that is kind of the issue

at hand here with this investigation is whether she immigrated to the United States and her family immigrated to the United States legally. So a federal judge in Washington, D.C., issued a warrant for the DOJ to investigate Ilhan Omar's house. And we're not exactly sure the specific thing that they were looking for in Ilhan Omar's house in Washington, D.C., but we do know that it has something to do with her immigration status. Now, you might say, shouldn't we have known about her legal immigration status before electing her to Congress, or shouldn't that detail have come out in a congressional race that she ran in? Yeah, it probably should have. But it appears as though she may have lied on her immigration papers, suggesting that she was older than she actually was when she came to the United States.

Now, looking at the history of Ilhan Omar's life, she was born in Somalia in the early 1980s, and then in 1991, the Somalian Civil War broke out, and they had to flee down to Kenya. Ilhan Omar's family lived in Kenya in a refugee camp for four years, after which they then came to the United States, applied for citizenship under refugee status, and were admitted to the United States as refugees. Now, when Ilhan Omar became a U.S. citizen in 2000, she became a citizen as a minor, which means there were significantly lower standards required for naturalization because she was a minor and became a citizen along with her parents, who had to go through the full naturalization process. So that's why we're a

what Ilhan Omar did. She gained U.S. citizenship in the year 2000 while her parents were also gaining U.S. citizenship. She claims that she was 17 at the time. The problem is, according to the state of Minnesota's actual records, Ilhan Omar said that her birth year was 1981. So if you do the math, there's no possible way that she was 17 in the year 2000. So assuming all of those details are correct, if she was actually born in 1981 and she gained U.S. citizenship as a minor, then she lied in order to gain you as citizenship. And that is a crime. You're not allowed to do that, and that is grounds for denaturalization, which means your citizenship can be revoked. So there's a lot of speculation that that's what the Trump administration is looking for, or what the DOJ is looking for in this.

Trump himself has claimed that he has no connection to this investigation. We know that he does not like Ilhan Omar, so he very well might have directed the DOJ to investigate her to see if she was telling the truth about this, but this is a DOJ independent investigation. Ilhan Omar, of course, is claiming that this is a political tool that President Trump is using to target somebody he doesn't like. And it certainly has the appearance of being something like that. Whether there's an actual crime committed here, it's very possible. We're not sure yet, but it is possible. The reason that we're not exactly sure whether Ilhan Omar lied or whether this was just an error

was the fact that she just had her birth year changed, according to Minnesota documentation. She had her birth year updated from 1981 to 1982, and that means that she could have actually been 17, in the year 2000 when she gained U.S. citizenship. That detail is really important whether she was actually born in 1981 or 1982. We don't have those official records because she was not born in the United States, which raises all sorts of issues with people who are not born in the United States being elected into U.S. Congress in the first place. And that's one of the main reasons that Ilhan Omar and President Trump have clashed in the past.

I mean, Ilhan Omar has played a large role in funneling literally billions of taxpayer dollars fraudulently through programs like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, other welfare programs to the Somali population of Minnesota. A lot of whom we found out didn't really need the money, were taking the money under fraudulent premises, were illegal immigrants, or even worse, some of that money has been tied to the funding of ISIS and other foreign terror organizations. And Ilhan Omar has played a really large role in that. Ilhan Omar also in 2024 told a group of Somali constituents in Minneapolis that her loyalties first lie with Somalia, then with Muslims, and didn't even mention the United States in there. The speech was not even in English. It was in Somalian. In another part of the speech,

she said, quote, many Somalians have personally called me to encourage me to speak to the U.S. government and help Somalia. They wanted to know what the U.S. government could do for Somalia. My answer to Somalians was that the U.S. government will only do what Somalians in the U.S. tell them to do. They will do what we want and nothing else. They must follow our orders, and that is how we will safeguard the interests of Somalia. We Somalians must have that confidence in ourselves that we call the shots in the U.S. The U.S. is a country where one of your daughters

is in Congress to represent your interests. So sleep in comfort, knowing I am here to protect the interests of Somalia from inside the U.S. system. I mean, that's a U.S. congressperson just openly admitting that she is operating primarily in the interests of a foreign nation. I mean, in the 60s, we rooted out and prosecuted actual Soviet spies for a lot less than that. And this is a person who's making decisions in the United

States Congress for where your tax dollars are going, what laws are being passed, the wars that we get involved in, just openly admitting that she's a foreign actor. It's also an open and blatant violation of the oath of allegiance to the United States that she was required to take in becoming a naturalized citizen. So especially with the age dispute, there is definitely legitimate reason to question Ilhan Omar's allegiance to the United States and whether she would even tell the truth in order to become a U.S. citizen, because clearly the oath of allegiance

didn't mean that much to her. Now, there's also a chance that the DOJ was investigating Ilhan Omar's house because they were looking into Ilhan Omar's father's immigration status, which is also very questionable. Ilhan Omar's father, Nur Omar Mohammed, was a high-ranking colonel in the Somalian socialist dictatorship that was overturned in the 1990.

Civil War. Under Somali President Siyadh-Barre, Ilhan Omar's father was involved in some very bloody human rights abuses, according to the BBC. And he was also educated and trained as a military official in the Soviet Union. So we have a foreign, Soviet-trained military official responsible for human rights abuses who came to the United States claiming refugee status as a teacher. He claimed to be a teacher who was just fleeing the war, which one is not true because he was not a teacher. He was a military official for decades. Two, he was not in Somalia anymore. They were in a Kenyan refugee camp for four years.

So he actually did flee to a refugee camp that was much closer to his home and didn't need refuge from Kenya. So we have multiple lies that were involved in Ilhan Omar's father, a Soviet-trained socialist military general in a government that we were not in support of, by the way. and that's not how refugee status works either. You're not a civilian. You're not being targeted as a civilian. The only reason that Ilhan Omar's father was in danger is because he was involved in a military regime that was pretty brutal and oppressed its people. But still, he came to the U.S. in 1995 as a teacher claiming refugee status and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2000. He passed away of COVID-related complications in 2020. money. So this whole issue of getting a search warrant for Ilhan Omar's house and doing this whole investigation is not necessarily because the DOJ is looking to denaturalize him, but maybe to see

what he was involved with in the United States. After all, he was Soviet trained. He was a military general. That comes with a unique set of skills that we didn't know that he had when he came over here claiming refugee status. So we want to know kind of what he was involved with, whether he may have been a spy in the United States. Who knows? That could be part of the of this investigation as well. We're not exactly sure what the end goal of the investigation is. I know it's about immigration issues and Ilhan Omar's legal immigration status. But the real thing that we should take away from this whole situation is how did these people pass through the naturalization status to become citizens? That's a very difficult and lengthy process.

Refugee status is much easier to obtain and a green card is much easier to obtain than actually becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. That takes extensive background checks that requires citizenship tests, that requires an oath of allegiance to the United States. It also requires that you prove that you would be an asset to the United States in the sense that

you understand the morality and can be expected to uphold the moral standards of the United States and also that you're not going to be an economic drain on the United States. Those two things are required to be demonstrated by the person seeking to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen.

And somehow, some way, a Soviet-trained military general in a socialist country that committed severe human rights abuses was able to pass all of those tests and be naturalized as a U.S. citizen under false pretenses. And his daughter became a citizen without us even knowing how old she is. I mean, how can we be confident in an actual background check if they couldn't even figure out her birth year? And that really throws the naturalization process into question here. I was in some House Judiciary Subcommittee hearings this summer, chaired by Eric Schmidt from Missouri, and they were digging into this. And one of the things that they talked about repeatedly and witnesses talked about repeatedly was that in practice, all of those standards for naturalizing someone as a citizen end up falling on the U.S. government to prove that they would not be a drain on the United States or that they would not have the moral character necessary to assimilate into the United States. Because that's what all those standards are to try to prove that somebody will assimilate. to the United States. We've had circumstances where we have actual avowed ISIS members become

naturalized citizens of the United States, refused to take the oath of allegiance while being naturalized, while going through the naturalization ceremony, where you're required to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States. There was an ISIS member who did not say the oath of allegiance and instead started screaming a jihadist Muslim prayer. And he was still naturalized as a U.S. citizen because the onus falls on the U.S. government. And if you have a particular person who wants to be more lenient about that, then these people can get in. So the conclusion to this is that one of the things that the House Judiciary Committee was looking into, and one of the things that Trump administration has been looking into, is the

denaturalization process, the process that is required to take away somebody's citizenship because they gained it under false pretenses. That's really the only time that you can strip a naturalized citizen of their citizenship is if you can prove that they lied or misrepresented themselves when going through the process of naturalization. If the Trump administration, if the DOJ can prove that Ilhan Omar knowingly lied as a pretense for her being naturalized as a U.S. citizen, then they may be able to denaturalize her and strip her over citizenship, which would be a first.

That has never happened to a sitting congressperson in the United States. So we will definitely be following this investigation as it goes forward because it definitely could make history. You're listening to Under the Radar with Luke Miller on Radio Free Hillsdale, 1.7 FM. The next piece of news I have for you this week is a Supreme Court case, once again challenging the universal authority of rogue judges. Now, this has been a frequent topic of discussion on this show.

Since January 21st, 2025, the beginning of the second Trump administration, there have been over 50 instances of universal injunctions from rogue district court judges that stop the Trump administration from implementing its agenda. Now, that doesn't mean that everything the Trump administration is. administration has done has been perfectly legal and that there aren't some instances where courts should step in and check the executive authority. However, the fact that the Supreme Court has overturned so many of these lower court injunctions shows that these aren't really being done for principled legal reasons, but just to stop the Trump administration. I mean, I talked on the show about a district

court judge stopped the Trump administration from removing temporary protected status from Haitians, temporary status, which has allowed 350,000 Haitians to live in the United States as refugees without becoming citizens for over 20 years and collect welfare and all that kind of stuff. It's been a major problem that has had to do with Haitians, Venezuelans, and other groups who've had temporary protected status for way too long. It's turned into a permanent protected status in the United States. The Trump administration tried to overturn temporary protected status for Haitians. One district court judge universally stopped the Trump administration and stop the Trump DHS from being able to remove temporary protected status and

deport Haitians who had committed crimes within the United States. And if you'll recall, I read some different quotes from that decision. It was the most unprofessional, sassy, clearly politically motivated decision I've ever seen written from an actual U.S. judge. But that man had the power to shut down an executive order written by the president and the actions of the Department of Homeland Security by himself. Now, the Supreme Court overturned that. district court judge's decision and allow DHS to go forward with removing temporary protected status from Haitians. That's just one example. That's happened 50 times already in this first year and a half-ish of the second Trump administration. For context, it happened well over 100

times in the first administration. It happened very few times under the Biden administration, very few times under the Obama administration, even fewer times under the George W. Bush administration. So this is not a normal thing for these rogue judges to have universal far-reaching power over the executive branch to not just check them when they obviously supersede the law, but to shut down an entire federal agency when they disagree with the outcome of the policy. For example, this case that has recently come to the Supreme Court this week is about a district court judge in Texas who issued a universal injunction to block the No Surprises Act, which was passed in 2022 under the Biden administration, and is being forwarded now by the Trump administration.

So this is a bipartisan law that is intended to protect patients from surprise health care bills. I think we can all get on board with that. But this one district court judge at the behest of a challenge from a hospital in Texas decided that the policy would, quote, create a host of practical problems. Not that the policy was illegal, which is what the judge is supposed to be deciding on, whether the policy is legal or not. No, the judge said that implementing the policy would create a host of practical problems.

And so the Department of Health and Human Services is not allowed to implement the bipartisan law across the entire United States. The Trump administration is challenging that ruling, citing the Trump v. Casa case, which I've talked about on this show, in which the Supreme Court ruled that justices do not have the authority to issue universal or nationwide injunctions that prohibit the government from enforcing a policy anywhere in the country. Now, you might ask, how is a district court judge still issuing nationwide injunctions, universal injunctions, if the Supreme Court already ruled that they weren't allowed to do that. Well, the distinction, which is very small, seems to be that the previous case, the Trump v. Casa case, prohibited universal

injunctions against a particular law or policy, while this case is dealing with vacating agency action, which means injunctions against an agency being able to act upon the policy itself. It's a small and very picky distinction that this Texas judge is very clearly trying to use to get around the Supreme Court's decision. Again, another rogue judge trying to overturn a bill that was passed in Congress in 2022 under the Biden administration, trying to be enforced now by the Trump HHS, bipartisan bill, passed by the representatives of the people, blocked by one rogue judge in the state of Texas. So this seems like a slam dunk that the Supreme Court is going to overturn this injunction, is going to say that just like universal injunctions against policies, a district court judge cannot

individually supersede a federal agency and stop them from acting upon a law that was passed by the representatives of the people in Congress. The last piece of news I have for you this week is in executive order entitled Emergency Tax Relief on Diesel Fuel. Now, the price of diesel fuel has risen dramatically across the United States this year. At the beginning of 2006, U.S. diesel fuel was an average of $3.46 per gallon. As of October, it is $6.18 per gallon for the U.S. national average. That is a 79% increase this year alone, or $2.72 per gallon increase. So if you're filling up a 30 gallon tank with diesel fuel early this year, you're going to pay just over $100. Now if you're going to fill up a 30 gallon tank with diesel fuel, it's going to cost you

$185. That's a pretty significant increase, especially for the average diesel driver. You're talking about truckers, you're talking about farmers who use it for their tractors and other equipment, people who need fuel to make their living, typically speaking. Now, we have diesel trucks and other things like that that people use for driving on the road, but generally speaking, people who need diesel fuel need to use a lot of it. And so this drastic increase in diesel prices has really, really affected American workers. So before we get into some of the details of the executive order and what President Trump is trying to do to help solve some of this problem, let's look at some of the causes for the increased price of diesel fuel. The first and most obvious cause is the conflict in

the Middle East, the Iran War, and the disrupted shipping from the Middle East through the Strait of Hormuz. So Iran put a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz. We remove their blockade, and now we have a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz. That has just really clogged up shipping of oil coming out of the Middle East that we need in the United States to use and refine to make diesel fuel. obviously a conflict in the area is also going to stop production over there. It's going to stop production of oil. It's going to stop production of gas. So we have less production. You have less shipping. So the amount of product that actually makes it to the United States from the Middle East has decreased drastically. That also means that the product that the rest of Europe and Asia are getting from the Middle East has gone down drastically. As a result, those countries in Europe and Asia turn to the United States to buy diesel fuel. So that means that, demand for the United States diesel fuel has gone up drastically. The supply is being spread across the world now instead of more concentrated in the United States. So that means the price for Americans is going to go up. So President Trump signed this executive order in hopes to

bring down domestic prices for diesel fuel. The goal of the executive order is to suspend the diesel fuel excise tax. So the normal 24 cent per gallon tax that the federal government places on diesel fuel, which is a really high excise tax, by the way. I didn't know it was that high. But the excise tax on diesel fuel is going to be suspended for the rest of the year so that the sellers of diesel fuel don't have to take on their burden of the excise tax and the consumers of diesel fuel don't have to take on their burden of the excise tax. Ideally, that translates one for one so it should be about a 24 cent decrease in the price of diesel fuel. There are implementation delays that go along with that, so it might not happen immediately.

and there's obviously external effects of a policy like this, so we likely won't see a full 24 cent decrease in the average price of diesel fuel. But hopefully this will bring the price of diesel fuel down a little bit. Now, that's not going to fix the problem. This is just an attempt to show Americans that President Trump does care about the price of gas and that he does want to bring it down. But for a real solution, for prices to really come down, we're going to have to see shipping from the Middle East open up again.

You're going to have to see shipping from Russia open up a little bit. more and you're going to have to see those supply shortages in Europe, Asia, and the United States go down in order for the price of gas to fall down anywhere close to where it was, even at the beginning of this year. So to recap this week, we cover the DOJ investigation of Ilhan Omar's immigration status, a Supreme Court case about the power of rogue judges, and an executive order hoping to lower diesel prices. Tune in next week for more. Well, that's all I have for you today on Under the Radar. I'm your host, Luke Miller, and I want to thank you for listening

and encourage you to tune back in next time for more coverage of the news that fell under the radar. You're listening to Radio Free Hillsdale, 101.7 FM. Thanks for listening to Under the Radar with Luke Miller, here on Radio Free Hillsdale, 101.7 FM.