LD. JUST NOW: Trump Accuses Omar of “Defending Criminals” — She Fires Back: “You’re Afraid of Due Process, Not Crime” .LD

The debate stage was already tense when the immigration segment turned into a blunt, personal clash over crime, courts, and the Constitution.

Pressed on how quickly his administration would move to deport undocumented immigrants accused of offenses, Donald Trump praised a set of “fast-track deportation procedures” he said would keep “dangerous people” from “hiding behind loopholes.”

“We’re done letting killers and gang members game the system,” Trump declared. “My opponent is on the side of criminals. She wants them to lawyer up, stay here for years, and laugh at our country.”

The camera cut to Rep. Ilhan Omar, who sat rigidly at her podium, lips pressed together as the crowd reacted with a mix of cheers and boos.

When it was her turn, she didn’t bother softening her response.

“Let’s be clear,” Omar began. “You’re not mad at crime. You’re mad at due process. Wanting a lawyer and a judge doesn’t mean loving crime; it means respecting the Constitution you claim to defend.”

The line landed like a punch.

Some in the audience leapt to their feet cheering. Others booed loudly enough that the moderators had to ask for quiet. Trump shook his head, smirking into the camera.

“Here we go again,” he said, talking over the noise. “Ilhan Omar wants everyone to have years of court hearings, taxpayer-funded lawyers, endless appeals… Meanwhile, American families are being robbed, assaulted, and worse by people who should have been deported on day one.”

Omar jumped back in.

“What you’re describing isn’t justice, it’s shortcuts,” she said. “You want the power to point at someone and say ‘criminal’ and then skip the part where we actually prove it. That’s not toughness. That’s fear of scrutiny.”

One moderator tried to clarify, asking Trump whether his proposal would limit access to immigration judges or legal counsel for people swept up in his fast-track system. He gave a broad answer about “prioritizing resources” and “not letting technicalities stop deportations,” without offering specifics.

Omar seized on the vagueness.

“That’s the problem,” she said. “Behind every slogan about ‘ending chaos’ is a real human being who may never see the inside of a courtroom before you put them on a plane. If the case is so strong, why are you afraid of a judge? Why are you afraid of letting the accused have a lawyer?”

Trump shot back that Omar was “more worried about criminals than citizens.”

“She’s defending people who broke into our country,” he said. “And she wants to give them better treatment than most Americans get. That tells you everything.”

Omar didn’t blink.

“I’m defending the idea that the government doesn’t get to destroy your life just because someone in power brands you a threat,” she replied. “Our entire system is built on one principle: the state has to prove its case. You don’t get to erase that because it polls well.”

The moderators cut in for an immediate fact-check, noting that current immigration law already allows a form of expedited removal in certain circumstances, but that critics worry expanded fast-track procedures could sweep up long-term residents and asylum seekers with limited access to counsel. They pointed out that due process in immigration courts is already under strain, with backlogs and uneven access to legal representation.

Trump brushed off the nuance.

“People are tired of excuses,” he insisted. “They want safety. They want criminals gone. My plan does that.”

Omar responded with a different definition of safety.

“Safety isn’t just the absence of crime,” she said. “It’s the presence of rights. If the government can strip due process from the most vulnerable today, it can do the same to you tomorrow. That’s what I’m fighting.”

In the spin room afterward, the exchange instantly became the centerpiece of the night.

Trump’s surrogates pushed the “defending criminals” line relentlessly, framing Omar as someone who “cares more about procedure than victims.” One advisor said, “If you’re more worried about a court date than a family who just lost a loved one, you’re on the wrong side.”

Omar’s team countered that the debate had exposed Trump’s real fear — not of crime, but of accountability.

“He doesn’t want judges, attorneys, or appeals because those are the checks that stop him from turning suspicion into punishment,” one aide said. “Tonight, she called that out on live TV.”

Online, the moment detonated. Clips of Omar saying “You’re afraid of due process, not crime” trended alongside Trump’s accusation that she was “on the side of criminals.” Hashtags like #DueProcess, #DefendingCriminals, and #ConstitutionOverFear flooded feeds.

Commentators split, sometimes along predictable lines:

• Supporters of Trump argued that Omar had “exposed herself” as “soft on crime,” insisting that “endless legal protections” were a luxury Americans could no longer afford.
• Supporters of Omar said she had finally forced the debate to confront the uncomfortable truth that “tough on crime” rhetoric often translates into “light on rights” for entire communities.

But beyond the spin, one thing was clear: the argument on stage was bigger than a single policy or procedure. It was a fight over what kind of power the government should have — and how much inconvenience, cost, and time a democracy is willing to accept in the name of justice.

As the lights dimmed, Omar’s closing words lingered:

“If our answer to crime is to break our own rules, we haven’t solved anything. We’ve just proven that fear runs this country more than the Constitution does.”