Former President Donald Trump mocked Rep. Ilhan Omar’s habit of citing the Constitution during a recent interview, caricaturing her as lecturing “what the Constitution says.” Omar fired back within hours.
The spat is more than a viral clip. It encapsulates a deeper civic question: Who gets to define the Constitution in public life — elected officials, courts, or the loudest microphone?
At a Glance
- What happened: Trump mocked Omar’s constitutional references; Omar responded that she can read the Constitution and will keep citing it.
- Why it matters: The exchange spotlights how politicians invoke the Constitution to justify policy, mobilize supporters, or delegitimize opponents.
- Constitutional lens: First Amendment protections for sharp political speech, Qualifications & Naturalization realities for members of Congress, and separation of powers norms about who interprets the law.
- The broader stakes: Whether constitutional language is being used to inform public debate — or as a branding weapon that confuses rights and responsibilities.
What Sparked the Clash
Trump’s remarks cast Omar’s constitutional citations as performative. Omar’s reply reframed the moment as a basic literacy test: leaders should read the text they invoke. The back-and-forth quickly turned into a proxy fight over who owns constitutional language in American politics.
“Unlike you, I can read — and that’s why I know what the Constitution says.”
Omar’s supporters framed her response as a reminder that constitutional interpretation isn’t reserved for presidents. Critics said her retort was more performance than substance. Trump’s swipe relied on the idea that his opponents misuse the Constitution to police him. Omar’s reply relied on the idea that Trump ignores the limits it places on him.
At the heart of the dispute are three constitutional principles
First, the First Amendment protects the entire exchange. Political ridicule, sharp criticism and heated debate sit at the core of protected speech. Neither Trump nor Omar is anywhere near the legal boundary of defamation or incitement here — this is the kind of argumentative noise the Constitution expects in a democracy.
Second, constitutional interpretation is not the sole domain of the courts. Members of Congress make constitutional judgments every day — when drafting laws, overseeing agencies or debating executive power. Whether those judgments are sound or cynical is up to voters, not judges.
Third, the eligibility and citizenship debate that often surrounds Omar resurfaced. The Constitution makes clear that naturalized citizens enjoy the same congressional eligibility as the native-born. Attempts to frame Omar as somehow “less legitimate” collide directly with the Qualifications Clause.
What the moment really showed is how easily the Constitution becomes a prop. Trump used it as a punchline. Omar used it as a credential. Neither approach offers much clarity for the public on what the Constitution actually says or how it works.
The Constitution is supposed to be a guide to governing, not a branding tool.
When political leaders cite it carefully, they elevate civic understanding. When they toss it around as an insult, they shrink it to the level of partisan applause lines.
The takeaway from this dust-up isn’t who won the clapback. It’s that constitutional language deserves better than being reduced to meme warfare. In a country governed by a written charter, the people who invoke it have a responsibility to do more than wave it around. They should read it — and explain it.