Those who defended investigating Donald Trump should accept lawful scrutiny of Ilhan Omar - and demand the same standards for both.

For years, Americans were told that investigating Donald Trump demonstrated the strength of our institutions. No one was above the law. Political prominence offered no immunity. Accusations of partisan motivation could not substitute for answering the evidence.

If those principles were sound, they should apply equally to Rep. Ilhan Omar. If those “principles” were merely a smokescreen for thinly veiled political persecution, Democrats have reason to feel nervous about reprisals.

Indeed, some of the same voices that welcomed scrutiny of Trump now describe investigating Omar as an assault on American democracy. The distinction appears to depend less on a consistent standard than on whose political fortunes are threatened.

Consider the New York Times editorial board. In March 2023, it defended holding Trump accountable, urging Americans to set politics aside when judging his legal cases. In its recent Omar editorial, the board acknowledges uncertainty about the allegations but condemns the investigation as political repression.

That is a remarkable shift in presumption.

With Trump, readers were encouraged to trust the process despite his claims of political targeting. With Omar, the president’s hostility becomes a central reason to distrust the process before its evidentiary foundation is established.

Different cases can warrant different conclusions. But those differences must be demonstrated. A politician’s party cannot supply the missing analysis.

Omar’s investigation reportedly concerns immigration records, including whether her age was misrepresented when she acquired citizenship through her father. The allegations remain unproven. She deserves the presumption of innocence and every applicable procedural protection.

Nevertheless, describing an age discrepancy as mere paperwork risks obscuring its possible significance. If eligibility depended on being younger than 18 when statutory conditions were satisfied, the difference between 17 and 18 could determine whether that citizenship pathway was available.

It could be a discrepency. Investigating which explanation fits is a legitimate function of government.

Being an outspoken presidential critic create immunity. Otherwise, any sufficiently prominent opponent could characterize scrutiny as retaliation and demand that investigators stand down.

Trump made versions of that argument. Many commentators rejected them. They cannot now embrace the same reasoning simply because they sympathize with the person making it.

Election timing makes the inconsistency particularly conspicuous.

Trump’s legal troubles unfolded throughout his presidential campaign. His Manhattan conviction came in May 2024. In October, a judge publicly released an extensive prosecution filing in his federal election case despite objections about its proximity to voting.

Those events differed procedurally from searching Omar’s home. Court scheduling and presidential-immunity litigation help explain the October disclosures. But the broader principle remains: election proximity alone was not treated as sufficient reason to halt proceedings against Trump.

It cannot become sufficient when Omar is involved.

The proper question is whether officials chose their timing to influence the election. Justice Department policy prohibits that purpose; it does not suspend all investigative work during campaign season. Apply that distinction consistently.

Consistency also requires acknowledging limits. A judicial warrant does not establish guilt. A disputed name in a government filing does not establish identity fraud. Political accusations, however frequently repeated, do not become proof through repetition.

Republicans should resist declaring victory before the evidence is tested. Democrats and sympathetic editorial boards should resist declaring authoritarianism before establishing misconduct.

Both obligations arise from the same principle.

The electoral backdrop makes selective standards especially damaging. Voters already face competing claims about prices, war and congressional control. Some former Trump supporters express disappointment while remaining unwilling to support Democrats. Others may stay home.

For these voters, watching accountability change meaning with party affiliation offers another reason to distrust the institutions claiming impartiality.

Democrats could answer that distrust by defending Omar’s rights without demanding exemption from scrutiny. They could insist on lawful searches, credible evidence and fair proceedings while accepting that a legitimate investigation may uncover uncomfortable facts.

That would be a stronger defense of American ideals than suggesting the allegations’ merits are secondary.

Nobody needs to support deporting Omar to support examining whether she lawfully acquired citizenship. Nobody needs to approve of Trump’s rhetoric to recognize that his hostility does not automatically invalidate investigators’ evidence.

Those who defended investigating Trump should accept lawful scrutiny of Omar. If accountability means anything, it must remain binding when its application becomes politically inconvenient.

(Contributing writer, Brooke Bell)