What did the Office of Congressional Ethics report specifically say about Ilhan Omar’s royalty payment?

1. What the OCE wrote: a tentative allegation, not a finding

The OCE’s public transmittal and report framed the royalty issue as a potential omission and not as a conclusive violation: it stated that Rep. Omar “may have received an advance payment on royalties” for her book and “may have omitted required information” from financial disclosures, language the OCE uses when facts warrant further review rather than a determination of wrongdoing ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The Board’s recommendation: dismiss the royalty allegation

Despite transmitting the report to the Committee on Ethics, the OCE Board recommended that the Committee dismiss the allegation about book royalties because the Board concluded there was “not substantial reason to believe” Rep. Omar omitted required information from her disclosures, and the Board voted to dismiss that allegation ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Committee on Ethics response and publication of the OCE report

The House Committee on Ethics did not immediately adopt the OCE’s dismissal recommendation; on March 22, 2022 the Committee announced that a majority did not vote to dismiss the matter and, under House rules, the Committee published the OCE’s report and a statement by the Committee’s leadership about the referral ^{[2] [1]}.

4. Context: who raised the complaint and what they sought

Conservative watchdogs and outside groups had pressed the question: the National Legal and Policy Center urged the OCE to obtain Omar’s publishing contracts and agent agreements to determine whether she received an advance or royalties, which is the kind of documentary evidence the OCE requested or sought during its review ^[4]. These complaints framed the issue as a potential failure to disclose income, but the OCE’s own published language stopped short of asserting that royalties were paid or improperly hidden ^{[1] [4]}.

5. How the reporting ecosystem amplified the question — and where limits remain

After the OCE referral and later political attention, partisan outlets and GOP investigators emphasized a narrative of “sudden wealth” and pushed for broader probes of Omar’s household finances; some outlets and political actors have sought subpoenas or ethics scrutiny, but those political pushes are separate from the OCE’s measured wording and the Board’s dismissal recommendation and rely on different evidentiary claims and motives ^{[5] [6]}. The available public records and the OCE report itself do not establish that Omar received royalties or that she violated disclosure rules; they show the OCE reviewed an allegation, recommended dismissal for lack of substantial reason to believe an omission occurred, and transmitted that report to the Committee on Ethics for its action ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

6. Bottom line and evidentiary limits

The OCE report specifically said only that Rep. Omar may have received an advance royalty payment and may have omitted required disclosure information, that the Office reviewed those allegations and transmitted its findings to the House Committee on Ethics on December 22, 2021, and that the OCE Board recommended dismissing the royalties allegation because there was not substantial reason to believe the required omission occurred; it did not find or state definitively that royalties were paid or that disclosure laws were violated ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The public record available in these sources does not contain documentary proof of a royalty payment or a criminal finding, and other parties continue to investigate or allege additional financial concerns beyond the narrow OCE language ^{[4] [5] [6]}.