WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 20, 2026) — The intersection of sports, celebrity, and hard-right politics exploded into a new controversy this week, centering on former NASCAR icon turned conservative commentator Danica Patrick. A firestorm of outrage and support is currently sweeping social media and cable news following viral reports that Patrick made inflammatory, racially charged remarks targeting Somali immigrants and specifically singling out Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar.

The allegations, which surfaced late Sunday, January 19, attribute a series of blistering statements to the former racing star during a recent public appearance. While the remarks have not yet been independently verified by major news organizations, their rapid spread has ignited a fierce debate about xenophobia, free speech, and the role of celebrities in political discourse.

The Alleged Remarks

According to multiple viral posts and secondary accounts circulating on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Truth Social, Patrick was addressing a crowd on the topic of national identity and civic responsibility when she reportedly pivoted to the subject of immigration.

The controversy hinges on a specific, incendiary phrase. Patrick is alleged to have stated that the United States would be “safer without Somali immigrants,” before adding the shocking qualifier: “starting with Ilhan Omar.”

Further reports claim Patrick framed these comments within a broader critique of assimilation and American values. She was quoted as saying:

“This country welcomes people in good faith, but what we get in return — from some — is contempt for our culture, our values, and our Constitution. Maybe it’s time we started speaking up for the silent majority.”

If verified, these comments would mark a significant escalation in Patrick’s rhetoric. Since retiring from professional racing, she has increasingly positioned herself as a provocateur in the “culture wars,” often criticizing “woke” ideology. However, directly targeting a sitting member of Congress based on their ethnicity and national origin represents a shift that many critics argue crosses the line into hate speech.

A swift and Divided Reaction

The backlash was immediate and severe. By Monday morning, hashtags calling for boycotts of Patrick’s remaining sponsors were trending, alongside demands for her removal from various media platforms.

Civil rights organizations, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and immigration advocacy groups, issued blistering condemnations. In a statement released early Tuesday, a coalition of advocacy leaders labeled the alleged remarks as “textbook xenophobia” and “deeply dangerous.”

“To suggest that a community of people makes America ‘unsafe’ based solely on their origin is the definition of racism,” the statement read. “To then specifically target a naturalized U.S. citizen and elected official like Representative Omar is not just offensive; it is an incitement to hostility. This kind of rhetoric puts lives at risk.”

Progressive lawmakers rallied around Omar, who represents Minnesota’s 5th congressional district, home to a large Somali-American community.¹ Several colleagues took to the House floor and social media to denounce the comments, warning that rhetoric attributed to influential public figures can amplify division at a time of already heightened political polarization.

“This is not political discourse; this is hate,” wrote one prominent Democratic senator. “We cannot allow the normalization of attacks that question the citizenship and loyalty of Americans based on where they were born.”

The “Silent Majority” Defense

Conversely, the alleged comments have found a receptive audience among segments of the political right. On conservative forums and talk radio, Patrick is being hailed by some as a courageous truth-teller willing to voice what they believe others are thinking but are afraid to say.

Supporters seized on the “silent majority” portion of the alleged quote, framing Patrick’s potential words as a defense of traditional American values rather than an attack on individuals. “Danica is saying what millions are thinking,” read one top comment on a conservative news aggregation site. “It’s about respect for the Constitution, not race.”

This polarization highlights the unique space Patrick now occupies. Once known for breaking barriers as a woman in the male-dominated world of motorsports, she has reinvented herself as a voice for a specific brand of grievance politics. Her supporters view her transition not as a descent into extremism, but as an awakening to the “realities” of modern America.

The Danger of Unverified Viral News

It is crucial to note that as of Tuesday afternoon, no video or audio recording of the specific “starting with Ilhan Omar” comment has been authenticated. The lack of independent verification has added a layer of confusion to the outrage.

Media analysts caution that the rapid spread of these quotes reflects the volatility of the current information ecosystem. “Whether she said it exactly as quoted or not almost doesn’t matter to the algorithm,” explained media ethics professor Dr. James Sterling. “The content confirms the biases of both her critics and her supporters. It spreads because it outrages one side and validates the other.”

However, observers note that Patrick has not yet issued a denial. In the world of crisis management, silence is often interpreted as tacit confirmation, or at least a willingness to let the controversy burn for engagement.

Targeting Ilhan Omar

Representative Ilhan Omar is no stranger to such attacks. Since her election in 2018, she has frequently been a lightning rod for criticism, often centered on her faith, her background as a refugee, and her policy positions. However, the specificity of the alleged comment—suggesting the country would be “safer” without her—evokes a darker history of nativist rhetoric.

Critics argue that singling out Omar serves to delegitimize her status as an American. “Ilhan Omar is a citizen. She is a member of Congress,” said a spokesperson for a Minnesota-based immigrant rights group. “To suggest she should be ‘removed’ or that the country is better off without her presence is an attack on the very idea of democracy.”

What Comes Next?

As the story continues to dominate the news cycle, pressure is mounting on Patrick to clarify her position. Will she double down, embracing the controversy as a badge of honor in her new career as a conservative pundit? Or will she claim she was misquoted, attempting to walk back the most incendiary parts of the statement?

For now, the controversy serves as a stark reminder of the fragile state of American discourse in 2026. A former race car driver, a Somali-American Congresswoman, and a viral quote have collided, revealing deep fractures in how the nation views immigration, identity, and what it means to be an American.

The world waits to see if Danica Patrick will hit the brakes or slam on the accelerator. But for the communities targeted by the alleged words, the damage may already be done.