A government watchdog is demanding the House Ethics Committee subpoena Rep. Ilhan Omar's financial documents after an oversight board voted 5-1 to recommend dismissing a probe into a staggering discrepancy in her disclosed wealth.

The National Legal and Policy Center fired off its demand after the Office of Congressional Conduct quietly recommended that the Ethics Committee drop its investigation into Omar's financial disclosures, filings that showed her reported assets plunging from as much as $30 million to less than $100,000 in the span of roughly a year. The watchdog group, which originally filed the complaint against the Minnesota Democrat, wants the committee to obtain the underlying financial records rather than rubber-stamp a dismissal, the New York Post reported.

Paul Kamenar, who represents the National Legal and Policy Center, called the OCC's lopsided vote to recommend dismissal "stunning." He was blunter about Omar's explanation for the massive gap in her numbers.

"Her excuse that their accountant was so stupid that he valued the assets without considering the liabilities is laughable."

Omar's office has blamed the discrepancy on an accountant's error. Her spokeswoman, Jacklyn Rogers, insisted the numbers never reflected reality.

"From day one, we have been clear: the Congresswoman is not a millionaire."

A $30 million swing Omar blames on her accountant

Omar's 2024 financial disclosure form reported assets of up to $30 million, a figure driven largely by her husband Tim Mynett's business interests, a winery empire and a venture capital firm called Rose Lake Capital. She personally signed off on that form. Roughly a year later, following a series of reports by the New York Post, she amended the disclosure and slashed the figure to less than $100,000.

Her latest filing went further, stating that Mynett earned as little as $200 from those same enterprises. That is a drop from tens of millions in reported assets to pocket change, and the only public explanation is that an accountant got it wrong.

Omar's office told the Wall Street Journal that the congresswoman "isn't involved in her husband's businesses and trusted the accountant involved." But Omar herself signed the original disclosure. Members of Congress are personally responsible for the accuracy of the financial forms they submit. Trusting an accountant does not relieve that obligation.

The OCC's report concluded that "there is not substantial reason to believe that Rep. Omar reported false or incomplete information in her financial disclosures." But the watchdog group argues the board never obtained the documents that would answer the obvious question: how do assets worth up to $30 million become less than $100,000?

Omar has faced a separate federal investigation into whether she committed immigration fraud, a matter that has dogged her for years and remains a subject of intense scrutiny.

Comer backed off, and the Ethics Committee may never act

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by term-limited Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, referred the Omar matter to the Ethics Committee months ago. A spokeswoman for the Oversight Committee said it "referred the matter months ago to the House Ethics Committee and encouraged it to do its job and review the concerning allegations."

Comer himself had earlier told the Post he might subpoena Tim Mynett directly. He later backed off and deferred to the Ethics Committee instead. Kamenar was not impressed, saying Comer "seemed to drop the ball on his committee's investigation of her husband who is not subject to jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee."

That jurisdictional gap matters. The Ethics Committee oversees members of Congress, not their spouses. If Mynett's business dealings are at the center of the discrepancy, and Omar's own filings say they are, the Ethics Committee may lack the authority to compel the records that would resolve the question. The Oversight Committee could have pursued Mynett directly. It chose not to.

The situation surrounding Omar is hardly the only legal cloud hanging over the congresswoman's family. Her son's Minneapolis home was raided by police, who seized guns and ammunition linked to a felon roommate, an incident Omar has declined to address publicly.

OCC's recommendation is non-binding, but the timing raises questions

An OCC spokesman confirmed that "the Committee on Ethics is never bound by any recommendation from OCC." The spokesman declined to discuss specifics of the Omar matter, citing internal rules. That means the Ethics Committee can reject the dismissal recommendation and launch a full investigation on its own.

Whether it will is another matter. The committee is evenly divided, three Republicans and three Democrats, a composition that makes partisan deadlock the default outcome on any politically charged case. And the OCC's recommendation arrived just after a 60-day blackout period began on September 4, a window that bars the Ethics Committee from initiating new inquiries close to an election.

The timing is worth noting. The blackout shields incumbents from ethics actions during campaign season. The OCC's vote to recommend dismissal, coming right at the edge of that window, means the Ethics Committee's hands are functionally tied until after voters go to the polls.

When Fox News Digital asked Omar whether she was under an Ethics Committee investigation, she laughed. "No," she said. "We go over this all the time." Pressed about the roughly $29 million drop in her financial disclosure, she was equally dismissive: "There's also the possibility that it might rain on this sunny day."

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance announced that the Department of Justice would open a probe into Omar's alleged immigration and fraud violations as part of a new anti-fraud task force, according to Fox News. Omar has also faced questions about her connection to the Feeding Our Future scandal, described by the DOJ as the "single largest COVID-19 fraud scheme in the country," which cost taxpayers roughly $250 million. Testimony before a Senate committee on Minnesota fraud has tied the scheme to Omar's legislative efforts, including her MEALS Act.

Accountability requires someone willing to demand the records

The core problem is straightforward. A sitting member of Congress filed a legally required disclosure claiming assets of up to $30 million. She signed it. A year later, she amended it to less than $100,000 and blamed her accountant. The congressional office responsible for investigating the matter voted to drop the case without, according to the watchdog group, obtaining the financial documents that would explain the gap.

The Oversight Committee referred the case and walked away. The Ethics Committee is split evenly and barred from acting before the election. The OCC says its recommendation is non-binding but won't discuss the details. And Omar laughs off the questions.

Federal investigators have also been examining whether Omar committed immigration fraud by marrying her own brother to help him enter the country, a separate matter, but one that adds to a pattern of serious, unresolved questions about the congresswoman's conduct.

The National Legal and Policy Center is asking for something basic: get the documents. If the accountant made an honest mistake, the records will show it. If something else happened, the records will show that too. The only people who benefit from leaving those records unexamined are the people who filed the forms.

When a member of Congress reports a $30 million swing in personal wealth and the system shrugs, the system is not protecting the public, it is protecting the member.