A certified public accountant with three decades of experience is rejecting Rep. Ilhan Omar's claim that an accountant's mistake caused her congressional financial disclosure to balloon her reported net worth from under $100,000 to as much as $30 million. Dan Geltrude, founder of Geltrude & Company, said on Monday that Omar cannot shift blame for what appeared on a form she signed, the Daily Caller reported.
The Minnesota Democrat's 2025 financial disclosure to Congress initially listed household assets between $6 million and $30 million. After the Office of Congressional Conduct contacted her about the figures, Omar filed an amended version that slashed the reported total to between $18,004 and $95,000, a swing so large it raises basic questions about how the original numbers got onto the form in the first place.
Omar's office blamed the whole thing on an accounting error. Her spokeswoman, Jacklyn Rogers, told reporters the correction speaks for itself. Her lawyer wrote to the Office of Congressional Conduct that the mistakes were "inadvertent" and that "nothing illegal has occurred." Geltrude isn't buying it.
Geltrude, who founded his firm in 1995, laid out the core issue in blunt terms during an interview with David Asman. Members of Congress who file financial disclosures sign those forms. That signature carries legal weight.
Geltrude told Asman:
"Let's call this for what it is: When a Congressperson has to file these financial disclosure forms, they are signing them and by signing them, what are they saying? They are true, complete and accurate to the best of their knowledge."
Then he posed the question Omar's defenders have struggled to answer. As Geltrude put it:
"So are you telling me that she didn't notice that her net worth went from 100,000 to 30 million? Don't blame the accountant. You can't say you don't know. Your signature on that form holds you legally accountable."
That's the gap at the center of this story. Omar wants the public to believe she signed a document claiming she was worth tens of millions of dollars, and simply didn't notice. Anyone who has ever reviewed a financial statement, a tax return, or even a mortgage application knows that a figure jumping from five digits to eight digits is not the kind of detail that slips past you.
Omar lashed out at a reporter who pressed her on the discrepancy, a response that did little to clarify the substance of the matter.
Geltrude also dismantled the idea that the accountant simply invented the inflated figures. Asman asked whether anyone he knew had ever heard of an accountant fabricating numbers on a disclosure form. Geltrude's answer was direct:
"Well, no one I know, and I certainly didn't. David, come on. The accountant did not make these numbers up. These numbers were provided in some form for the accountant to prepare the forms."
That observation cuts to the heart of how financial disclosures work. Accountants prepare forms based on information their clients provide. They don't dream up asset values. Someone gave the accountant the data that produced a net worth claim of up to $30 million. If it wasn't Omar, the question becomes: who was it, and why?
The amended filing, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and reported by Fox News, showed that Omar's husband Tim Mynett's two companies were listed at $0 in value on the corrected form. Yet documentation cited by the Journal indicated that a 2025 email valued Mynett's venture-capital management firm at $7.9 million and his winery at $1.5 million, with Mynett owning roughly a third of both.
So the original filing may have overstated Omar's wealth. But the amended version may have understated it. Neither version inspires confidence.
Omar had quietly amended the disclosure after the Office of Congressional Conduct sent a March letter requesting additional information, a timeline that suggests the correction came under pressure, not from any voluntary impulse to set the record straight.
Asman raised another angle during the interview: whether the original valuation of Mynett's companies might have excluded liabilities and scored him on unrealized gains. He noted the irony that Democrats like Omar have pushed to tax billionaires on unrealized gains, the very accounting method that may have inflated her own household's reported wealth.
Geltrude acknowledged the possibility but circled back to the same conclusion:
"But if you are asking is it possible that they excluded liabilities and unrealized gains, yes, it's possible. But that would result by them not giving their information to the accountant to put on the form. So, either way, David, she is responsible."
Whether the original numbers were too high because of missing liabilities, inflated valuations, or some other factor, the responsibility still rests with the person who signed the form. Geltrude left no room for ambiguity on that point:
"But again, I go back to she is responsible. So what it tells me is either she misled in some way, or she simply didn't review the forms. Either way, there is no excuse here, David, None."
The disclosure mess is not the first time Omar's finances have drawn scrutiny. During the Biden administration, the Justice Department probed how Omar's wealth had grown since she entered Congress, with particular focus on income received by her husband. The outcome of that probe has not been publicly reported.
Omar also faced a complaint to the Federal Election Commission alleging she used campaign funds to pursue a relationship with a lobbyist, Mynett, whom she later married. The article references a reportedly extramarital affair in 2019. The outcome of the FEC complaint also remains unclear from available records.
Attorney Paul Kamenar, quoted by the Washington Free Beacon, offered his own assessment of Omar's explanation: "Omar's excuse that she just realized this gross discrepancy is laughable."
House Oversight Chairman James Comer has questioned the sharp increase in the reported value of business interests tied to Mynett and requested related financial records. The amended filing showed that Mynett received $213,200 in 2024 distributions from his venture-capital management firm and $3,000 from the winery, not the profile of a household worth only $95,000, and not the profile of companies worth $0.
Omar has dismissed GOP probes as political theater and dared Republicans to investigate. Whether that bravado holds up as the numbers keep shifting is another matter.
Newsmax noted that no criminal charges have been filed and that legal consequences would depend on whether any false reporting was intentional. Omar's lawyer has insisted the errors were inadvertent.
But intentionality is precisely the question that Geltrude's analysis sharpens. If Omar reviewed the form and signed it, she either noticed a $30 million net worth claim and let it stand, or she signed a legally binding document without reading it. Neither answer reflects well on a sitting member of Congress.
The broader controversy has also fueled renewed attention to longstanding allegations about Omar's personal history, including claims of immigration fraud that senior administration officials have discussed publicly.
Several key questions remain open. What specific information did Omar or her husband provide to the accountant who prepared the original filing? What did the Office of Congressional Conduct's March letter actually ask? And why did the original disclosure and the amended version produce figures so wildly different that they describe two entirely different financial realities?
Omar's spokeswoman told Breitbart and other outlets that "the amended disclosure confirms what we've said all along: The congresswoman is not a millionaire." That line has become the Omar team's standard response.
But "I'm not a millionaire" is not the same as "I filed accurate disclosures." And blaming the accountant is not the same as explaining how a number that large ended up on a form with your signature at the bottom.
Members of Congress ask the public to trust them with trillions in spending decisions. The least they can do is get their own net worth right, or take responsibility when they don't.