Republicans hope there are lots of Democrats who won’t win re-election next week and return to Capitol Hill. Republicans are imploring voters to kick them out.

But President Trump is focused on bouncing one Democrat from Congress who likely wins re-election in a solidly blue district. That’s Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). She carried her district two years ago with nearly three-quarters of the vote. But President Trump questions whether Omar is in the country legally and, therefore, qualified to sit in Congress.

"She used a fake name to be sworn in," said the President. "She's a little troublemaker." The Department of Justice is investigating Omar for potential immigration fraud. Federal authorities raided her Washington, DC home recently and removed 17 items. That included phones, notebooks, a camera and a Somali phrase book for her kids.

President Trump suggests that her name is not "Ilhan Omar" and that it’s "an entirely different name name. Ihan Nur Sayeed Elmi.

It's close." A federal filing in that inquiry lists the Congresswoman’s name as "Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Abdullahi Omar."

That’s why the President says "she must immediately resign from Congress." A reporter for Fox Digital confronted the Congresswoman about her name.

"Is your name Ilhan Sayed, Ilhan Nur Sayed Alami, or Ilhan Abdullahi Omar?" asked Rashid Umar Abbasi, working for Fox. "Ilhan Abdullahi Omar. You know it," replied Omar. "Ma'am?" asked Abbasi for clarification. "It's Ilhan Abdullahi Omar," she confirmed. The Clerk of the House of Representatives officially lists the Congresswoman as solely "Ilhan Omar" on 15 different financial disclosure reports dating back to 2018.

That’s even before she entered Congress. The same with the Minnesota state legislature where Omar served prior to coming to Washington. The discrepancy is why the President wants the House to banish Omar.

"She will not be legally allowed to be a member of that august body that sits in Washington," said President Trump. But it’s not his call.

However, Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution grants both bodies of Congress final authority about who it admits to its membership.

At least one House Republican is willing to explore that. But only if the facts merit it.

"The House has the prerogative to seat or not seat and to throw Members out if it so chooses," said Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.). "There ought to be good sound reasons for it." It’s a different set of rules, but Griffith had experience with this as the Virginia House of Delegates grappled with a similar issue about seating lawmakers in the Commonwealth in 1988. But Congress is altogether different.

"It would be extraordinary. And it should be extraordinary and it should not be used except in extraordinary circumstances," said Griffith. Yours truly asked what would meet that bar to block someone from serving in the House.

"It's like the Supreme Court said about pornography. I'll know it when I see it," said Griffith, paraphrasing late Justice Potter Stewart from a key 1964 obscenity case.

House Republicans have two options to deal with Omar if they are truly determined to take action – regardless of what is proven or not. Qualifications for the House are pretty simple. You must be a citizen and a resident of the state you are representing. And, you must be 25 years old. You could even be convicted of a crime and serving time in jail. The Constitution is silent on all other credentials. You could also have a resume which is without a blemish. It doesn’t matter. The House could still take action against you.

The first conceivable option could come now. The Constitution grants the House and Senate the right to expel Members – provided there’s a two-thirds vote. Any scenario to expel Omar seems remarkable. Especially since she hasn’t been convicted of a crime. And even if she is charged, there are lots of other issues which could emerge before a trial.

It would be strange to have the executive branch of government trying to remove a Member of the legislative branch of government. Moreover, it’s likely that the House counsel would contest any effort by federal prosecutors to procure Omar’s official House communication devices as well as documents. There’s a firewall between the legislative branch and executive branch known as the "Speech or Debate Clause." Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution grants lawmakers privileges tied to their official duties. So getting those papers — let alone potentially deporting her as some have suggested – is a far cry. Especially since she’s a Member and this all hinges on expulsion.

Moreover, two-thirds of the House will never vote to expel a Member under these circumstances unless there’s ironclad proof of wrongdoing. That’s why the House has only expelled six Members in its history. The last was former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) in 2023.

However, what may be an issue is whether or not there could be an objection to seating Omar when the new Congress convenes in January.

In 1968, then Rep. Adam Clayton Powell (D-NY) faced a criminal investigation. House Speaker John McCormack (D-Mass.) refused to seat Powell – even though he met all other requirements. The Supreme Court ruled in Powell v. McCormack that the House can’t exclude a Member if they meet the basic standards to serve in the House.

That said, it’s possible there could be motions not to seat Omar – or even other progressive Members-elect who have said controversial things about the U.S. and Constitution. Such a motion would come right after the House chooses a Speaker. But the Speaker has not sworn-in the rest of the Members. The House would then swear-in everyone – except the Member or Members-elect who may face questions about serving. Once the House swears in the rest of the body, it can then vote on a motion not to expel those persons, table the motion, or refer the motion to a committee for investigation.

In 1985, the House did not swear-in Rep. Frank McCloskey (D-Ind.) and decided to investigate whether or not he won his seat in the Hoosier State. The House didn’t swear-in McCloskey for several months.

Based on Powell v. McCormack, it’s hard to envision a scenario where the House declines to seat someone. But it might not do it immediately based on the McCloskey case.

Of course, it’s always probable that the House could seat someone – and then expel them. That doesn’t collide headlong with the Powell decision. But considering that the House has only expelled six members, those circumstances are doubtful, too.

What’s in a name? Especially for Ilhan Omar. Her adversaries may raise questions about her name. But it’s doubtful they can do anything about her position.