Which co-sponsors supported the Feed Children Act and what was Omar's role in building that coalition?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available reporting identifies the MEALS Act and related child‑nutrition bills as having bipartisan sponsors and co‑sponsors, and shows Rep. Ilhan Omar played a visible role advocating extensions and changes to pandemic-era meal flexibilities (e.g., urging extension of the MEALS Act) [1]. Multiple recent pieces link Omar to the policy that expanded meal reimbursements during COVID and note she urged extensions; some outlets and commentators allege a connection between that legislation and later fraud in Minnesota’s Feeding Our Future case, while Omar and others have pushed for investigations and condemned the fraud [2] [3] [4].
1. What the “Feed Children / MEALS” legislation was and who backed it
The MEALS Act and a set of pandemic-era child nutrition waivers provided flexibility to feed children when schools closed, reaching millions; Rep. Ilhan Omar publicly urged lawmakers to extend the MEALS Act that provides free meals to more than 20 million children [1]. Broader child‑nutrition legislative activity in 2025 included bipartisan bills such as the Child Care Nutrition Enhancement Act and Early Childhood Nutrition Improvement Act, sponsored by Rep. Greg Landsman in the House and Senators Richard Blumenthal and Tina Smith in the Senate, and other bills introduced by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici and Rep. Ryan Mackenzie with Senate sponsors Blumenthal and Smith — showing cross‑party support for updating child‑care food assistance [5] [6] [7].
2. Who cosponsored those reform bills (where sources list them)
Available sources name primary sponsors for the 2025 CACFP/child‑care nutrition bills and note “several co‑sponsors,” but do not provide a full enumerated list of every co‑sponsor in the reintroduction notices cited here [5] [6]. The National CACFP Sponsors Association and allied organizations cite the reintroduction of H.R.2859/S.1420 (Child Care Nutrition Enhancement Act) and related bills and say co‑sponsors exist and the full legislation includes co‑sponsor lists, but the specific names beyond the lead sponsors in our results are not reproduced in the reporting provided [6] [7].
3. What role Ilhan Omar played in building the coalition
Reporting shows Omar was an active public advocate: in 2022 she, with four other House members, urged Congress to extend the MEALS Act and pressed for maintaining free‑meal flexibilities as waivers were set to expire; that demonstrates advocacy and coalition‑building through public appeals and press events [1]. Sources indicate Omar held events and had ties to local community figures in Minnesota — for example, her campaign events have intersected with local actors later involved in the Feeding Our Future prosecutions — and some outlets argue those ties illustrate influence in enabling providers to access program dollars [2] [8]. Omar’s office and allied reporting also show she called for investigations and condemned fraud once allegations surfaced [4] [3].
4. Competing narratives and what evidence each relies on
One narrative (mainstream reporting and Omar statements) is that the MEALS Act provided necessary emergency flexibility and that fraud by bad actors — who later were prosecuted in Feeding Our Future — represents criminal abuse of an emergency program; Omar publicly urged inquiry and framed many Somali community members as victims too [1] [4] [3]. An alternate narrative, carried in opinion and investigative pieces, contends Omar’s legislative role and local ties facilitated the entry of actors who later committed fraud; those pieces point to campaign events and community links as circumstantial indicators [2] [9] [8]. Available sources do not produce explicit documentary proof in this set that Omar knowingly abetted fraud; instead they show advocacy for the law, local connections, and later allegations and prosecutions involving community members [2] [4].
5. What the sources do — and do not — say about culpability
Mainstream articles document prosecutors’ findings and convictions in Feeding Our Future and report allegations of fake documentation and large monetary loss (over $240 million referenced by congressional investigators) [4] [3]. Opinion pieces and partisan outlets assert a direct causal link from Omar’s legislation to the fraud and suggest ethical questions about her local ties; those are claims supported in the provided materials mainly by circumstantial details (campaign events, fundraising, community connections) rather than explicit proof that Omar intended or facilitated fraud [2] [9] [8]. Available sources do not mention evidence in these reports that Omar personally directed or profited from the fraud; they do show she urged oversight and called for investigations once the scheme emerged [4] [3].
6. Bottom line for readers
The legislation expanding child‑meal flexibilities had bipartisan support and advocates like Rep. Omar publicly pushed to extend it [1] [5]. After criminal schemes exploited emergency programs, prosecutors secured convictions in the Feeding Our Future case and political commentators linked local ties to policy outcomes; those links remain contested in reporting and rest largely on circumstantial connections in the documents we reviewed — not on sources here that show direct, proven involvement by Omar [2] [4]. Readers seeking the full cosponsor roll call or definitive proof of coordination should consult the congressional bill pages and court records; the sources provided here do not reproduce a complete co‑sponsor list nor establish direct culpability [10] [4].