The halls of the United States Capitol have weathered centuries of debate, dissent, and even civil war. But today, a new kind of tension permeates the marble corridors—a tension that many believe has reached its absolute breaking point. The question is no longer just about policy differences or partisan bickering; it has evolved into a fundamental question of loyalty.
How far is too far? This is the question echoing from the town halls of the Midwest to the high-stakes briefing rooms of Washington D.C. As anger rises across the nation, critics are pointing directly at Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, accusing them of not just critiquing the American system, but actively working to undermine the very nation they swore a sacred oath to serve. With calls for accountability reaching a fever pitch, a once-unthinkable remedy is now being discussed openly: Expulsion.
The Sacred Oath and the Rhetoric of Subversion
Every member of Congress begins their journey with a hand on a Bible (or a text of their faith) and a solemn vow to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” To many Americans, that oath is a binding covenant. However, the recent actions and rhetoric of the “Squad’s” most prominent members have led many to ask if that covenant has been discarded in favor of radical, globalist ideologies.
Representative Rashida Tlaib’s recent history has been marked by what many describe as “anti-American vitriol.” Following her formal censure by the House for promoting narratives seen as supportive of extremist violence, the outrage has only deepened. Critics point to her participation in conferences where speakers openly called for the “sabotage” of the U.S. military supply chain. When a sitting member of Congress cheers on those who wish to see the American defense system “decay” and “collapse,” she is no longer acting as a “loyal opposition.” She is, according to her detractors, acting as an internal threat.
[Image comparing Censure and Expulsion in the U.S. House of Representatives]
The Crisis of Loyalty: From ICE to Charlie Kirk
The case against Ilhan Omar is equally, if not more, volatile. As the “America First” movement gains momentum, Omar’s actions have come under intense scrutiny. Reports that she allegedly provided “workshops” to help individuals evade federal immigration authorities have sparked a firestorm of “disloyalty” accusations. In the eyes of many, advising constituents on how to hide from the very agencies—like ICE—that Congress funds and oversees is a direct subversion of the rule of law.
The tension escalated to a dangerous new level following the tragic assassination of conservative figure Charlie Kirk in 2025. While the nation mourned, Omar’s perceived dismissiveness and her comments regarding Kirk’s legacy were viewed by many as a “ghoulish” politicization of a tragedy. The backlash was swift, with House Republicans moving to strip her of committee assignments. But for a growing segment of the American public, committee removal is a mere slap on the wrist. They are asking: If a member of Congress cannot show basic loyalty to the nation’s security and its people, do they belong in the People’s House at all?
The High Bar of Expulsion: Historical Precedent
Expulsion is the “nuclear option” of congressional discipline. It is a power granted by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote. Because of its severity, it has been used sparingly in American history—only six times in the House.
Historically, the common thread for expulsion has been disloyalty to the United States. During the Civil War, members were expelled for supporting the Confederacy. In modern times, it has been reserved for those convicted of serious federal crimes, like bribery or racketeering.
The argument now being made by critics of Tlaib and Omar is that ideological subversion can be just as damaging as physical rebellion or financial corruption. They argue that when a representative uses their platform to delegitimize the American founding, smear its Christian roots, and encourage the bypass of its borders, they are committing a form of “civic treason.”
“The House of Representatives is not a debate club for revolutionaries; it is the legislative heart of a sovereign nation. You cannot lead a country you appear to loathe.” — A sentiment echoed by many in the ‘America First’ movement.
A Turning Point for Civic Trust
The push for expulsion is not just about these two individuals; it is about the standard of conduct for the entire institution. If Congress allows its members to openly disparage the nation’s heritage and obstruct its laws without consequence, the message to the public is clear: the rules don’t apply to the elite.
This perceived double standard is what fuels the “America First” fire. Under Donald Trump’s leadership, the focus has returned to a single, unshakeable standard: loyalty to the nation. This means strong borders, rigorous vetting, and a zero-tolerance policy for those—especially those in power—who preach supremacy of any kind or seek to rewrite American history into a narrative of shame.
The “Great Erasure” mentioned by activists—the claim that America’s Christian and European roots are a “fabrication”—is the ideological fuel for Tlaib and Omar’s rhetoric. By positioning themselves as the “real Americans” while casting traditional American values as “oppressive,” they are attempting to flip the script of history.
The Path Forward: Accountability or Erasure?
As we look toward the 2026 elections, the battle for the soul of Congress will only intensify. The calls for expulsion represent a desperate plea from a public that feels its identity is being erased by the very people elected to protect it.
Will Congress find the will to hold its own accountable? Or will the precedent of “anything goes” rhetoric continue to erode the foundations of our Republic? The decision will likely define the next decade of American politics.
For those who believe in “One Nation, Under God,” the answer is simple. The House must be a place for those who love America, not those who wish to see her dismantled. The time for “polite disagreement” has passed. The time for a definitive stand for the truth has arrived.
