Carville: Ilhan Omar Should Leave Democratic Party, Do Her Own Thing

Democratic political strategist James Carville reiterated previous criticism of Ilhan Omar during a recent podcast appearance, again suggesting the progressive lawmaker should consider leaving the Democratic Party.

Carville made the remarks during an interview on Straight Shooter, hosted by Stephen A. Smith. Smith asked Carville about comments he made in May 2025 on his podcast, Politics War Room, in which he sharply criticized Omar, a member of the progressive group of lawmakers often referred to as “the Squad.”

Carville, who made a name for himself as an adviser to then-President Bill Clinton, indicated his views had not changed since the earlier remarks and again questioned Omar’s role within the Democratic Party.

Trump Gets Historic Support From Voting Base: Report
Read More
His comments reflect ongoing divisions among Democrats over the party’s ideological direction and the influence of progressive lawmakers in Congress.

“Lady, why don’t you just get out of the Democratic Party,” Carville said about Omar. “Honestly, start your own movement.”

His initial calls for Omar to leave the party were in response to a 2018 interview she gave to Middle East outlet Al Jazeera. Omar, who is married to a white man, falsely said “our country should be more fearful of white men because they’re causing most of the deaths within this country.”

According to 2023 FBI and Justice Department crime statistics, while whites commit the most murders in terms of raw numbers, black males are six times more likely to victimize other blacks.

Carville stated that Omar was a “very, attractive, soft-spoken lady,” he didn’t agree on her attacks on white men, explicitly calling her to “stop.”

“About 33% of the people that are gonna vote are gonna be white males,” Carville said. “Well, it’s stupid to attack 33% of the voters!”

“And so what I would say to Congresswoman Omar, ‘Why don’t you be a Democratic Socialist of America?’ Do what AOC did, and then if they win, the truth of that is, I share a lot of ideological issues in common with Congressman Omar, but maybe you should do like a parliamentary government. We’ll let you in the governing coalition, but not the electoral coalition,” Carville said.

“But we cannot- we have to get this mentality out that we can win national elections [without] White people, because you can’t,” Carville continued. “That we can somehow or another win an election without white males. It’s just insanity. It’s literally mathematical insanity, cultural insanity.”

“All white people are not the same. All black people are not the same. All Hispanic people are not the same, all right? ” Carville added. “And I don’t like generalizing about someone’s gender or their race or their sexual preference or anything else. All gay people are not the same. They’re very different personalities. They’re very different values, very different everything.”

Omar faced backlash after falsely claiming the United States deliberately targets Muslim nations during Ramadan. “Iraq was attacked by the US during Ramadan and it is sickening to know that the US is again going to attack Iran during Ramadan,” Omar wrote on X as tensions escalated ahead of a U.S. strike on Iran.

“The US apparently loves to strike Muslim countries during Ramadan and I am convinced it isn’t what these countries have done to violate international law but about who they worship,” she added.

But critics noted what she said was categorically incorrect. Also, they argued that such rhetoric, delivered during an active military standoff, risks giving adversaries propaganda they can weaponize.

Under the Constitution, treason is narrowly defined as levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Legal scholars have long noted that the “aid and comfort” standard requires intent and tangible support, not merely controversial speech.

Supreme Court Appears Poised to Weaken Voting Rights Act

The U.S. Supreme Court seems ready to impose stricter controls on the enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by federal courts, which could protect state lawmakers from challenges that mix race and partisanship in the redistricting process.

The impending decision carries immense weight, with two prominent voting rights organizations cautioning that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage.

In the re-arguments of Louisiana v. Callais, a conservative majority expressed a willingness to consider an approach supported by the Trump Justice Department.

This could complicate the ability of plaintiffs to succeed in claims of racial vote dilution in areas where voting patterns closely mirror party affiliations—a defining characteristic of contemporary Southern politics.

The situation arises from Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map, which a federal district court has found likely to violate Section 2 by funneling Black voters—who represent approximately one-third of the state’s population—into a single majority-Black district out of a total of six.

In 2024, lawmakers took action by adopting a remedial plan that established a second district of this kind. However, white voters took legal action, claiming that the adjustments constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and a district judge ruled in their favor.

The case, initially presented last March, has returned, as the justices have requested new briefs regarding the constitutionality of Section 2.

Last summer, Louisiana changed its position, now advocating for the Court to restrict or abolish race-conscious districting. Black voters who launched the initial challenge stood by the remedial map, asserting that it effectively addresses the documented dilution of minority voting power.

Conservative justices displayed hesitation to completely overturn Section 2, a provision established in 1965 and reinforced in 1982 to prevent practices that deny minorities equal access to the electoral process.

In reference to the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which prevented federal courts from intervening in partisan gerrymandering, Mooppan contended that states could justify their maps by citing valid partisan objectives, even when these objectives intersect with racial demographics.

This would enable mapmakers to emphasize Republican strengths, for example, without violating Section 2, provided the intent isn’t solely racial.