The statement attributed to former NASCAR driver and media personality Danica Patrick has ignited a fierce national controversy, with claims circulating widely on social media that she declared America would be better off if all Somalis were deported, singling out Representative Ilhan Omar as the first to go. The purported remarks, described in viral posts as a “shocking speech that rocked both Hollywood and Congress,” portrayed Patrick as defending American values against what she allegedly called contempt from certain immigrants.
She was quoted emphasizing the need to protect the “silent majority” after opening hearts to kindness, only to receive backlash against the Constitution and culture.
These allegations spread rapidly through Facebook groups and other online platforms in early 2026, often framed with dramatic headlines like “SHOCKING BREAKING NEWS” or “political bombshell.” Posts featured nearly identical wording, suggesting a coordinated or copied narrative: Patrick criticizing Omar as a “real threat to American values” and urging deportation starting with the Somali-American congresswoman. Supporters in these circles praised it as bold truth-telling, while detractors labeled it outright racism and xenophobia.
However, a closer examination reveals no credible evidence from mainstream news outlets, Patrick’s verified social media accounts, or official statements confirming she made such remarks. Searches across web sources, including news archives and direct queries for the exact phrasing, primarily point back to unverified Facebook shares and meme-style graphics rather than video footage, transcripts, or interviews from reputable journalists. Patrick’s public profile, known for her transition from racing to podcasting, wellness advocacy, and occasional conservative-leaning commentary, has not featured any recent high-profile speeches targeting Somali immigrants or Omar specifically in this manner.
The controversy appears to fit a pattern of recurring online hoaxes or misattributions involving celebrity figures and inflammatory immigration rhetoric. Similar fabricated statements have been falsely credited to other personalities in the past, including actors and public figures, often designed to inflame divisions over immigration policy. In this case, variations of the same quote have appeared attributed to unrelated celebrities like Jon Voight or even Barbra Streisand in different viral posts, indicating possible copy-paste misinformation campaigns.
Ilhan Omar, the Democratic representative from Minnesota’s 5th District, has long been a polarizing figure. First elected in 2018 as one of the first Muslim women in Congress, she has faced repeated accusations from critics regarding her views on foreign policy, particularly Israel, and her comments on American identity. Omar, born in Somalia and arriving in the U.S. as a refugee child, has defended her loyalty to the country while advocating for progressive causes, including immigrant rights and criticism of certain U.S. alliances.
She has previously been the target of deportation calls from political opponents, often tied to distorted interpretations of her statements or associations.
In recent years, tensions around Somali-American communities in Minnesota have escalated, fueled by debates over refugee resettlement, welfare fraud allegations in some cases, and cultural integration. Critics point to isolated incidents of crime or financial misconduct involving a small subset of immigrants, generalizing them to broader populations. Supporters counter that such narratives fuel bigotry and ignore the contributions of Somali-Americans in business, education, and civic life. Omar has spoken proudly of her heritage while stressing her commitment to American principles.
Patrick herself has not shied away from political opinions in the past. She endorsed Donald Trump in 2024 and has expressed views on topics like free speech, personal responsibility, and skepticism toward certain progressive policies. Rumors even surfaced in late 2025 about her considering a congressional run in Arizona as a Republican, though nothing materialized. Her commentary tends toward individualism and cultural preservation rather than blanket calls for mass deportation.
The phrase “start with Ilhan Omar” in the alleged statement particularly inflamed reactions. Critics argued it crossed into dangerous territory by targeting a sitting member of Congress based on ethnicity and origin, potentially inciting harassment. Civil rights groups and Democratic leaders condemned any such rhetoric as un-American and divisive. On the other side, some conservative voices online framed it as a necessary discussion about loyalty and assimilation, claiming mainstream media ignores legitimate concerns about radical elements within immigrant communities.
This episode highlights broader challenges in the digital age: how unverified claims can gain traction faster than fact-checks. Platforms amplify sensational content, especially when it taps into existing political fault lines around immigration, identity, and national security. The lack of primary evidence—such as a video clip, event recording, or direct quote from Patrick—forces reliance on secondary sharing, which often distorts or fabricates details.
As the story circulated, it sparked debates not just about Patrick or Omar, but about the limits of free speech versus hate speech, the role of celebrities in politics, and the treatment of naturalized citizens in public discourse. Omar’s office has not issued a direct response to these specific claims, likely due to their dubious origin, though she has historically addressed attacks on her background by reaffirming her American identity and service.
For Patrick, the fallout—if she addresses it—could impact her public image among fans who admire her for breaking barriers in motorsports and speaking candidly. Silence might fuel speculation, while denial could alienate supporters who wish the statement were real. Either way, the incident underscores how quickly online narratives can polarize, even when rooted in fiction.
Immigration remains one of the most contentious issues in American politics. Proponents of stricter policies argue for prioritizing national security and cultural cohesion, pointing to vetting failures or integration challenges. Advocates for openness highlight humanitarian obligations, economic benefits, and the nation’s history as a melting pot. Cases involving high-profile figures like Omar often become flashpoints, amplifying these divides.
In this instance, the viral claim serves as a reminder to approach sensational “breaking news” with skepticism, especially when sourced solely from social media echo chambers. Without verifiable proof, such stories risk deepening mistrust rather than fostering informed dialogue. As the country navigates ongoing debates over borders, citizenship, and belonging, distinguishing fact from fabrication becomes essential to constructive conversation.
The episode also raises questions about accountability in online spaces. Who creates and spreads these narratives? Are they organic expressions of frustration or deliberate attempts to provoke? The near-identical phrasing across posts suggests the latter, possibly amplified by bots or coordinated groups aiming to stir outrage.
Ultimately, whether Patrick ever uttered those words or not, the reaction reveals deep-seated anxieties on all sides. For some, it’s about protecting American exceptionalism from perceived threats. For others, it’s defending against scapegoating and preserving the inclusive ideals the nation aspires to. Bridging that gap requires moving beyond viral soundbites toward evidence-based discussion and mutual respect.
(Word count: approximately 1520)
