Congress

Investigate them or shame them? Inside the debate over how to deal with creeps in Congress

Published

4 months ago

May 4, 2026

Two recent lawmaker resignations over sexual misconduct allegations have Congress wrestling with a familiar challenge: How can it encourage survivors of abuse to come forward in one of America’s most sensitive workplaces?

Former Reps. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) were both accused of sexual misconduct with staff, putting a fresh spotlight on Capitol Hill’s apparent culture of exploitation — nearly a decade after the #MeToo movement sparked a bipartisan push to improve the reporting process.

Now current and former members are reckoning with the shortcomings of those efforts.

“What we know is that the process is not working, because women staffers are not coming forward with the allegations, the accusations,” Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) said in an interview. “They’re not telling us what happened to them.”

In Swalwell’s case, four women did come forward — to the media. They spoke to the San Francisco Chronicle and BLN to accuse the then-congressman and California gubernatorial candidate of misconduct ranging from sending unsolicited explicit photos to rape.

Within days of the reports publishing, Swalwell withdrew his campaign for governor and resigned from the House. He has denied any wrongdoing, saying he stepped away from public life to fight the allegations, which have sparked a criminal investigation in New York.

The swift results Swalwell’s accusers saw from the court of public opinion stand in stark contrast to what Capitol Hill denizens have come to expect from the congressional ethics process.

There is no traditional human resources department on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers run their offices as fiefdoms with total control. And employees of the legislative branch are not covered by federal whistleblower protection laws like federal workers in the executive branch.

The House Ethics Committee can take months to issue any formal decisions or disciplinary recommendations, sowing doubt among lawmakers that it is the best means for survivors of misconduct to seek justice.

The Gonzales case helped fuel that skepticism. A wave of media reports alleged misconduct with a female staffer who later committed suicide. Facing rising social media pressure and flagging polling numbers, Gonzales publicly confessed in March to a sexual relationship with the woman and withdrew his reelection bid. He resigned in April.

Before he left, the independent Office of Congressional Conduct concluded in a confidential report there was “substantial reason to believe” Gonzales violated House rules, and the Ethics Committee opened an investigation. That probe was closed with Gonzales’ resignation and did not result in punishment.

Some lawmakers want to offer survivors a similar path to shaming their alleged abusers out of office.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), for instance, has asked any congressional staffers experiencing mistreatment or misconduct to bring their allegations directly to her office. Boebert has pledged to keep accusers anonymous as she uses her media platforms to publicize any credible allegations.

While Boebert said in an interview that she hasn’t written off the official channels completely, other options have to be open.

“Whatever actually holds people accountable,” she said. “I mean, that’s what it’s all about — holding creeps accountable.”

Currently, workers on Capitol Hill have multiple official avenues for reporting sexual misconduct, including filing civil claims through the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. House employees can use the “file a complaint” portal on the House Ethics Committee website and seek support from the chamber’s Office of Employee Advocacy. Senate employees can similarly file with the Senate Ethics Committee, though the guidance is complex and the panel is notorious for its inaction.

The tension between the formal ethics process, with its emphasis on due process, and Boebert’s push to simply throw back the curtains on allegations of sexual malfeasance is not new. The dynamic was central to the 2018 #MeToo debates, which resulted in an overhaul of Congress’ largely opaque workplace-harassment reporting process.

Under those changes, victims are no longer required to go through mediation for their complaints and are permitted to work remotely while the investigation process plays out. The Office of Employee Advocacy was created in the 2018 revamp to offer legal support to complainants.

But with sexual misconduct back in the headlines — and rumors of more bad behavior running rampant — some lawmakers including Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) are seeing new wisdom in Boebert’s name-and-shame strategy.

The clash of philosophies about how Congress should police itself presents a challenge for reform-minded lawmakers. Some want to simply better enforce existing law, and there are bipartisan concerns about preserving some semblance of due process without letting it become a perpetual shield for workplace predators.

“We cannot let allegations and rumors and Twitter posts lead to expulsions,” said Leger Fernández.

Other changes made in 2018 under the ME TOO Congress Act included ending the longstanding practice of using taxpayer dollars to pay out harassment settlements against lawmakers, instead requiring members to pay out of pocket.

Even with those changes, survivors still fear retaliation and being “blackballed” out of a career in politics or public service if they report their bosses. And victim advocates say the official processes remain lengthy and burdensome — all of which has weighed on a key architect of the 2018 law.

“Why, after we … provided so many more protections to the victims, that these women didn’t feel they could come forward?” former Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who was victim of sexual assault during her own time as a staffer, said in an interview.

In the eight years since the last update to Capitol Hill’s sexual misconduct laws, few lawmakers have been subjected to a full Ethics inquiry regarding sexual misconduct. Multiple members who faced public allegations, however, opted to leave Congress before the panel could release a report, including Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.) in 2019 and Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) in 2021.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said he has empowered Leger Fernández, who chairs the Democratic Women’s Caucus, to lead Democrats on “ensuring that we have the type of accountability and system in place that treats victims and staffers with the dignity and respect that they deserve.”

She plans to pursue bipartisan legislation this Congress that refines the 2018 reforms and identified Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), chair of the House Administration Committee, as a likely partner.

But Steil has his own ideas for how to address sexual misconduct in Congress, telling Blue Light News in a statement his panel is “always looking at ways we can improve compliance with existing laws.” He referenced the Congressional Accountability Act, a 1995 law which applied some federal labor laws to Congress and was the underlying statute updated in 2018.

Speaker Mike Johnson has also signaled he wants to focus on enforcement, though he said he is eager to hear proposals to encourage more reporting. He cited his desire to protect his two daughters who work on Capitol Hill as committee aides.

“I’m a father, not just the speaker of the House,” he told reporters last month. “If there are ways to tighten the rules, if there are suggestions, we’re seeking that from all members. We’re open to that.”He also suggested party operatives need to be more discerning in whom they recruit for office: “We don’t need people running for Congress because they see this as some opportunity for their own individual endeavors. I’ll leave it at that.”

Speier offered one jesting suggestion for dealing with predatory men.

“Maybe we need to put padlocks on their zippers when they first get to Congress,” she said. “I don’t know, but it’s got to be fixed, and we’ve got to do something bold.”

Congress

House Democrats watch closely as Hakeem Jeffries vows to rein in rogue members

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats have spent the better part of two years looking on in glee as House Republicans have struggled to wrangle their narrow majority and enact a consensus agenda.

Now, eyeing a potentially small majority of their own, they are eager not to see the shoe quickly land on the other foot — which is why Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is under fierce internal pressure to crack down on a surprise rebellion this week.

The decision by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) to support a Republican procedural measure that would have otherwise failed — essentially bailing out Speaker Mike Johnson’s floor agenda — prompted Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders to decry a “breach of trust” and promise a “serious response.”

Rank-and-file members are watching closely to see if Jeffries follows through on those threats and moves to rein in rogue members who could undermine the party agenda and his own leadership.

“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat and a Jeffries ally. “I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”

Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.

“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here … when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding. … We don’t want that.”

“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”

Already, House Democrats have competing views about how and when to punish the rogue members. Multiple members, for example, have privately suggested kicking Gluesenkamp Perez off of the Appropriations Committee — a highly coveted assignment.

Gluesenkamp Perez represents a district President Donald Trump won in 2024.

But others acknowledge that leaders have little leverage against the duo. Golden is leaving the House at the end of this term, and Gluesenkamp Perez is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country.

Keeping her seat in a district President Donald Trump won by 3 percentage points in 2024 could determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and she has made her clashes with party leaders a core part of her political identity.

Some members — including progressives who used procedural votes for leverage during Nancy Pelosi’s speakership — also cautioned leadership from overpolicing members.

Asked about how Jeffries should “punish” the members, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Progressive Caucus, said, “We’re not kids, and he’s not our dad.”

“I’m elected by 750,000 people. I get to make my decisions about what I want,” Jayapal said before adding, “At the same time, I think there has to be a strong commitment to the team.”

“I think that there can be certain reasonable expectations — for example, to flag how one may intend to vote on something,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I also think that the idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.”

Both of the rebels are shrugging off the intense reaction from Democratic leaders and some of their colleagues. Golden said he voted with Republicans to advance a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in Maine; Gluesenkamp Perez said she voted to support Golden and “people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water.”

“I do not have a polished political strategy,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I know my community, and that’s who sent me here, and that’s who I am thinking about.”

Many of their Democratic colleagues aren’t ready to just let it go, however. Several argued in interviews that if every member broke ranks on procedural votes to advance legislation they support, the party would lose significant leverage.

Golden, left, is retiring after his term ends.

“I am generally of the view that if you believe that you are a free agent in this town, maybe you don’t get to use the team locker room anymore,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said, adding that he could not think of a potential punishment “within the scope of what leadership can do that could be opposed by the caucus.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said “some tough love“ might be necessary to send a message to the broader caucus: “We’re all in this together.”

Amid the agita, it’s not clear how quickly Jeffries will act. An internal committee dealing with caucus rules met Wednesday and discussed the matter but did not advance any specific proposals for sanctions or rules changes.

Jeffries himself has not committed to a timeline for imposing consequences against the two defectors. He told reporters Wednesday he wants to pursue action “sooner rather than later” as he faces internal questions about whether he can exert the same level of control over Democrats as his predecessor did.

Pelosi dealt with rebellions of her own, including moderates who repeatedly voted with Republicans to amend Democratic bills on the floor. But she pointedly commented on the disloyalty on display this week, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez essentially voting to advance the GOP floor agenda.

“We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said Tuesday. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”

Another lawmaker who was happy to comment Wednesday was Johnson, who has routinely contended with GOP mutinies during his time in office — including one that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden bailed him out of Tuesday.

Jeffries “has a serious problem in his caucus,” he told reporters, citing the “warring factions in his party.”

“I don’t see a way out of that thicket,” he said. “But I’m not going to tell him how to govern his conference, and he doesn’t, or shouldn’t, be telling me how to.”

Congress

Tillis renews calls for Hegseth’s ouster

Published

12 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Thom Tillis renewed his call for President Donald Trump to fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, following the resignation earlier this week of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country,” the outgoing two-term North Carolina Republican wrote on X. “He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force.”

Driscoll, whose long-rumored resignation became official this week, had clashed with Hegseth over the Defense secretary’s reluctance to modernize the Army and his firings of dozens of senior officers. Hegseth has focused more on cultural issues — including grooming and fitness standards — within the department.

“If we had a @SecWar who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement,” Tillis charged. “Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”

The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment on Tillis’ post.

Tillis, who is not running for reelection in November, has openly clashed with Hegseth since Trump tapped the former Fox News host to lead the Pentagon in 2024.

In May, Tillis told POLITICO he believed Hegseth had misinformed Trump on the dynamics of a war in Iran. Firing Hegseth, he said, was on “a Christmas wish list.” In a book set to be released next month, Tillis branded Hegseth — along with a handful of other White House officials — as “MAGATS” and accused them of “not looking around corners and taking care of this president.”

It hasn’t earned him friends in the administration.

“The media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn’t brave, he was just the opposite – HE WAS A QUITTER!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in May. “Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!”

Congress

No immediate plans to punish rogue House Democrats for bailing out GOP

Published

12 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Despite a stern message from party leaders, a panel of House Democrats did not settle on any particular consequences for the pair of lawmakers who crossed party lines Tuesday to advance an otherwise troubled slate of Republican-led bills.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and fellow leaders said the matter would be reviewed by the Democratic Committee on Caucus Rules, which convened Wednesday morning for a prescheduled listening session.

Attendees discussed possible changes to the rules that govern House Democrats’ conduct for next term. Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), the panel’s chair, suggested to reporters that discussion included what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures like the one Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) supported Tuesday.

“There’s been a variety of suggestions to change our rules, not just regarding the last couple days, but several suggestions that have been percolating for some time,” Levin said, while adding that any changes would happen only “in the next couple of months.”

The lack of urgency stands in contrast to the stern statement Jeffries and fellow leaders made Tuesday about the rogue members’ “breach of trust” — not to mention the rage some rank-and-file House Democrats are expressing. Some have floated removing the pair from their committees — particularly Gluesenkamp Perez’ seat on the exclusive Appropriations panel.

“Somebody else who is willing to think about other people needs to be on that seat, that exclusive committee,” said one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Jeffries, who was not present at the meeting, also seemed to have a speedier timeline for responding to Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden. He told reporters after the meeting wrapped that he was waiting on feedback from Levin and that the caucus would have conversations “amongst the family about the best way to move forward.”

Asked about his timeline for action against the pair, Jeffries said, “Sooner rather than later.”