Congress

House formally shames Chuck Edwards for sexual harassing women on staff

Published

1 day ago

September 1, 2026

The House moved Tuesday to censure Rep. Chuck Edwards for sexually harassing young female staffers in his office.

The 413-2 vote was an overwhelming rebuke to the North Carolina Republican, who chose last month to forgo reelection following the release of a damning House Ethics Committee report detailing his pattern of misconduct.

It also comes as Congress is grappling with how to protect aides from members’ bad behavior amid a rash of harassment and assault allegations against lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

In Edwards’ case, the Ethics Committee found the lawmaker participated in “persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers” and made comments on the appearance of his aides, including on one staffer’s weight.

According to the report, Edwards gave the female aides purses, guns, shoes and flowers. Edwards skipped House votes one night to decorate a Christmas tree with a staffer and went drinking and gambling with her. The lawmaker recited a poem at her departure celebration and cried during it, making the staff uncomfortable, the committee said.

“Neither individual felt free to reject Rep. Edwards’ attention without fear of professional consequences,” said Rep. Mark Desaulnier of California, the top Democrat on the Ethics panel, during floor debate on the censure measure.

Edwards has denied wrongdoing, appealing to his colleagues last week in a lengthy letter to vote against the censure resolution. He argued “an affectionate friendship is not a sexual proposition. A gift is not sexual misconduct. A compliment is not sexual misconduct. Poetry is not sexual misconduct.”

He offered a similar defense in a floor speech Tuesday before the censure vote.

“I am imperfect,” Edwards said. “I have made mistakes, but I do not believe I committed sexual harassment and the factual findings of this investigation do not justify branding me as though I did.”

But Edwards did apologize to the staffers described in the report.

“I want to say something directly and publicly to the two women who have been at the center of all of this: I am sorry. I’m sorry that my actions, my judgement or the way that I expressed a friendship ever put either of you in an uncomfortable position,” Edwards said.

For many in the House Republican Conference, however, the report told them all they needed to know to inform their vote. Rep. Ben Cline of Virginia, for instance, said in advance of consideration of the censure resolution that he planned to support the measure because he “read the ethics report.”

Only Edwards and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) ultimately voted “no.”

Edwards’ letter seeking sympathy from fellow lawmakers also did not have the desired effect.

“Clearly the man … did not understand the gravity of his actions, showed no remorse, and really exemplified why the work that we’re doing on sexual misconduct reform is so critical,” said Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) in an interview Tuesday.

She and Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) are working on bipartisan legislation to overhaul the congressional ethics process — including instituting new rules for how members are allowed to interact with congressional aides and establishing a more consistent rubric for how members should be punished for specific offenses.

“The training has to be improved,” Cammack said. “I think Chuck Edwards proves that.”

Censure is the most severe punishment the Ethics Committee can recommend short of expulsion, and amounts to a public shaming on the House floor with no further threat of disciplinary action.

It used to be a rare occurrence in the House, with a long gap between the early 1980s — when late-Reps. Daniel Crane and Gerry Studds were censured for sexual misconduct with a House page — and 2010, when late-Rep. Charlie Rangel was censured for inaccurate financial reports and federal tax returns, among other actions.

Censure resolutions have, more recently, become more frequent fixtures of House activity, though not typically as a result of House Ethics Committee investigations.

In 2021, Democrats sought to censure Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) for posting a manipulated social media video of him appearing to kill a likeness of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and attack then-President Joe Biden. The vote was 223-207 with two Republicans supporting the measure — former Reps. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming.

A series of Republican-led censure measures were then brought in 2023 against three Democrats. Then-Rep. Adam Schiff of California, who is now a member of the Senate, was censured for “misleading the American public.” Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan was censured for allegations that she “promot[ed] false narratives regarding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel” — an issue that prompted 22 Democrats to join GOP lawmakers in support.

Former Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York was subject to censure for pulling the fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building during a vote his party wanted to delay. Bowman pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense and paid a fine.

The most recent censure vote was in 2025, when Republicans sought to punish Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) for protesting in the middle of President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress.

Congress

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

Published

3 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

8 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

9 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.”