Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar is pointing the finger at her accountants after a congressional financial disclosure filed last May listed assets between $6 million and $30 million, figures that, if accurate, would have represented a roughly 3,500% jump in net worth from the prior year. Now, an amended filing has quietly slashed those numbers to between $18,004 and $95,000, and Omar insists she was never a millionaire at all.
The reversal is staggering on its face. In 2023, Omar's husband Tim Mynett's venture capital firm, Rose Lake Capital, showed less than $1,000 in assets. His Santa Rosa, California-based winery, eStCru LLC, was valued at $15,000 to $50,000. One year later, the original disclosure pegged Rose Lake Capital at $5 million to $25 million and the winery at $1 million to $5 million. Then came the correction, and the explanation that it was all just a mistake.
The New York Post reported that Omar's spokesperson, Jacklyn Rogers, told The Wall Street Journal that the amended disclosure settled the matter. Rogers said the filing was corrected voluntarily once the error came to light.
"The amended disclosure confirms what we've said all along: The congresswoman is not a millionaire."
That was Rogers's statement to the Journal. She added that Omar "amended her disclosures voluntarily as soon as the discrepancy was identified."
Omar's lawyer, whose name has not been made public, wrote a letter to the Office of Congressional Conduct defending the filing errors. The lawyer argued that members of Congress and their spouses routinely lean on professional accountants for the figures that appear on public filings.
"As the busiest of people, it is very common for members and their spouses to rely on learned professionals like accountants to make calculations and determinations that appear on public filings. While the error is of course unfortunate, there is nothing untoward and nothing illegal has occurred."
The timeline demands scrutiny. Rose Lake Capital, a Washington, D.C.-based venture capital firm tied to Mynett, reported under $1,000 in assets in 2023. By the end of 2024, the original disclosure valued it at $5 million to $25 million. The winery jumped from $15,000, $50,000 to $1 million, $5 million over the same span. The combined figures placed the couple's holdings as high as $30 million.
Then the amendment arrived. Shared assets: $18,004 to $95,000. That is not a rounding error. That is a difference of tens of millions of dollars, on a form that exists precisely so the public can track what its elected officials own.
Omar's team says the 43-year-old congresswoman was not personally involved in her husband's businesses and had no hand in the figures that appeared on the disclosure. The blame, they say, rests entirely with the accountants who prepared the filing.
The explanation raises more questions than it answers. Which accountants made the error? How did professionals confuse assets worth under $1,000 with assets worth up to $25 million? Omar's camp has not publicly identified the accountants or explained the specific mechanism behind the mistake. The Office of Congressional Conduct has received the lawyer's letter, but no public response has been disclosed.
The disclosure mess has not gone unnoticed by watchdog groups. The Washington Free Beacon reported that the National Legal and Policy Center filed a federal ethics complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics alleging Omar failed to accurately report financial assets, transactions, and liabilities tied to Mynett's wine and marijuana ventures. The complaint points to discrepancies involving eStCru and a marijuana-related entity called EstVenture LLC, including reported asset values that appeared far below known investment amounts.
Paul Kamenar of the National Legal and Policy Center said the office should "initiate a 'preliminary inquiry'" into Omar's disclosures, adding: "These discrepancies in Omar's disclosure reports deserve to be fully investigated."
The Free Beacon also noted that Mynett's wine and marijuana ventures later collapsed and led to lawsuits from investors and business partners alleging fraud and breach of contract. Omar has a history of questions surrounding her husband's business interests and the accuracy of her financial filings.
Omar is not just facing questions from ethics watchdogs. The original disclosure's eye-popping figures fueled speculation on Capitol Hill and drew attention from President Trump, who called for a fraud probe into the congresswoman's finances. The specific nature of Trump's statement was not detailed in reporting, but the political pressure is real.
The House Oversight Committee has reportedly been probing Omar and Mynett over the sudden wealth surge reflected in the original filing. That probe predates the amended disclosure and raises the question of whether the correction will satisfy investigators or deepen their interest.
Meanwhile, Rep. James Comer has publicly questioned Omar's unexplained wealth in a broader political context. His criticisms have added to the drumbeat of congressional scrutiny directed at the Squad lawmaker's finances.
Omar also faces separate scrutiny unrelated to money. The White House has signaled an effort to pursue allegations of immigration fraud involving the congresswoman, adding another front to the political and legal pressure she faces heading into the next election cycle.
The core of Omar's defense boils down to a familiar Washington refrain: blame the professionals. The accountants got it wrong. The congresswoman didn't know. The amendment fixes everything. Nothing illegal happened.
But financial disclosure laws exist for a reason. They are supposed to give voters a clear picture of what their representatives own, owe, and earn. When a filing swings from $30 million to under $95,000, and the only explanation is an unnamed accountant's mistake, the system has failed at its most basic function. As we've previously reported, the gap between Omar's original and amended disclosures is one of the most dramatic reversals in recent congressional history.
The Wall Street Journal reviewed the amended filing. The Office of Congressional Conduct has the lawyer's letter. The Office of Congressional Ethics has the watchdog complaint. What remains missing is any independent verification of how the original numbers were generated, and whether the corrected figures are any more reliable than the ones they replaced.
Omar's spokesperson says the matter is settled. Watchdog groups say it deserves a full investigation. The public is left to decide which version of the congresswoman's finances to believe, the one that showed $30 million, the one that shows $95,000, or neither.
When your financial disclosure is off by tens of millions of dollars, "the accountant did it" is not an answer. It's the beginning of the question.
