Congress

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

Published

1 month 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

Chuck Schumer is ready for redemption

Published

8 hours ago

June 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Chuck Schumer has served as a punching bag for angry Democrats for more than a year — taking flak on everything from his 2026 recruiting to his handling of government funding talks.

But with about five months until the midterm elections, the Senate minority leader is gently starting to punch back — pointing out how some of his bets are paying off as his party moves within striking distance of taking back the majority in November.

“There’s no victory lap to take in June,” he said in an interview in his Capitol office suite.

But he ticked through moves he oversaw in the past year — from leading opposition to GOP safety-net cuts to picking shutdown fights over health care and immigration enforcement funding and orchestrating national intervention in several Senate primaries — that he argued have strengthened Democrats’ hand for the midterms and beyond.

“We made a lot of strategic decisions that got us to this place — it didn’t happen by accident,” Schumer said. “I knew from the beginning that if we recruited strong candidates, found paths to victory, focused on the issues the American people cared about, and forced … the Republicans, to carry Trump’s water, we’d be in much better shape, and that has happened.”

Schumer’s confidence comes after an at times rocky year for the minority leader: His decision to help advance a GOP government funding bill in March 2025 fueled a wave of calls from progressive groups and House Democrats for him to step down as Senate Democratic leader. Criticism crested again after eight members of his caucus broke from Schumer to help reopen most of the government after a record shutdown in November.

Polling has shown eroding favorability and approval ratings for Schumer — even in his home state of New York, where he has been elected to the Senate five times. He’s maintained support among the Senate Democrats who elected him leader, though some have dodged the subject of his future.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), asked by Blue Light News at a recent event in Illinois if he expects Schumer to be leader next year, said that Schumer has a “really hard job” and that Democrats are focused on “making sure that we have a majority, and then we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”

Murphy is part of a self-described “fight club” of Senate Democrats that has pushed for a more aggressive approach from Schumer and the party organs he controls. Some have broken with Schumer’s favored candidates in key Senate primaries.

But the picture has improved somewhat in recent weeks. In the recent Iowa primary, Schumer got his preferred candidate in state Rep. Josh Turek, even as some progressives backed a more liberal candidate. Polling shows a highly competitive race between Turek and the GOP nominee, Rep. Ashley Hinson.

Schumer had already helped recruit blue-chip Democrats in several key races, including Ohio, Alaska and North Carolina, where he got former Sen. Sherrod Brown, former Rep. Mary Peltola and Gov. Roy Cooper, respectively, to jump in. Texas has come up on the map for Democrats, with state Rep. James Talarico matched up with scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton.

And then there’s Maine — where Schumer’s backing of Gov. Janet Mills over populist insurgent Graham Platner further fueled grassroots disdain of the leader’s strategy. Mills ran a by-all-accounts lackluster campaign, which she suspended weeks before the primary.

But Schumer’s intervention has been cast in a new light by a series of revelations about Platner’s background, ranging from provocative online posts to a recent allegation that he was physically abusive to a former girlfriend — suggesting that party leaders may have had good reason to go with a known quantity in their latest bid to knock off veteran GOP Sen. Susan Collins.

In the interview Thursday, Schumer deflected questions about Platner, instead saying that Democrats are “going to beat Susan Collins, and we’re going to win Maine and we’re going to take back the Senate.”

He was glad to comment more broadly, however, on the change in Democrats’ political fortunes since early 2025, when Trump had just been sworn in to his second term and voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership in Washington began to crescendo.

“The bottom line is, that’s my job — to help strategize the best way to go, and then unify the caucus, and I think that’s what’s happened,” he said.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said in an interview that he believed conversations over Schumer’s leadership have changed since that moment after the March 2025 funding fold.

“Chuck by just virtually any objective measure – super successful majority leader in terms of legislation passed. And I think it took us all a while, including him, to [be] like, ‘We’re in the minority now,’” Kaine said. “You have different tools. … But I think he made the mental switch and has really narrowed down and focused on what kind of our case is to the American public.”

While Democrats have momentum, winning back the majority isn’t a sure bet and will require their candidates to run the table in several Trump-won states. Republicans entered the cycle with a structural advantage, having to defend relatively few competitive seats, and GOP senators believe they will still be in power come January.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters recently that he was “very confident” that Republicans “will hang on to and maybe even expand the majority in the United States Senate, which is counter, I know, to sort of the narrative these days.”

But Democrats are feeling increasingly optimistic. Kaine said at the start of 2025, he would have pegged the odds of a Democratic takeover of the Senate at 20 percent. He said he is at “45 percent now, with the arc going in the right direction.”

Democrats have long viewed their path back to the majority in 2026 as running through four states: Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Alaska. Schumer said he believes Democrats now have “other paths,” pointing to Iowa and Texas.

But they also need to hold onto seats in Georgia, where incumbent Jon Ossoff is running a strong campaign, and in Michigan, where the picture is more unsettled and illustrative of the challenges Schumer continues to face.

National party operatives fear an unabashedly progressive candidate, Abdul el-Sayed, could emerge from a messy three-way primary and complicate Democrats’ chances at keeping retiring Sen. Gary Peters’ seat in November.

In what many interpreted as an attempt to winnow the field and box out el-Sayed, Schumer voiced this week what had been a not-very-well-kept secret — he’d prefer Rep. Haley Stevens, telling Punchbowl News “she has the best chance to win.”

But the third leading candidate, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow saw an opportunity Thursday — attacking Schumer.

“Michiganders are sick and tired of the party putting their fingers on the scales,” she said in a social media video attacking Stevens and her national backers. “Schumer doesn’t decide — you do.”

Asked if he thought Democrats would keep Michigan no matter who emerged from the primary, Schumer instead said “we’re going to have a strong nominee who is a good fit.” And he defended his approach to recruitment and support in key races.

“We found great candidates,” Schumer said, lobbing a veiled retort at critics of his strategy. “I don’t look for candidates that fit the national Democratic Party profile.”

Shia Kapos contributed to this report.

Congress

Rick Scott lifts holds on Coast Guard promotions

Published

14 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Rick Scott said Thursday he had lifted his hold on Coast Guard promotions as he works to resolve a dispute between the service branch and a shipbuilder in his state.

The Florida Republican said in a statement that he cares “deeply about these Coast Guard promotions” and that “though we’re still not done, I’m lifting these holds as all parties have been working together in good faith and are moving towards an amenable agreement that gets ships built and is fair to US taxpayers.”

Scott added that “the process still needs to be better” and that he would “fight to ensure there is more oversight and accountability of the Coast Guard and that we fix the Coast Guard procurement process going forward.”

Scott initially placed the hold in April on the elevation of officers within the service, preventing the Senate from approving promotions via unanimous consent.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in 2025 scrapped plans for two advanced cutters being manufactured at Panama City-based Eastern Shipbuilding Group. The shipyard announced in November it would stop work on the two remaining boats “due to significant financial strain caused by the program’s structure and conditions.”

Scott had been a longtime booster of the partnership between Eastern and the Coast Guard and said in April he had been working with the administration to resolve the dispute but was struggling to get traction.

While the Senate could have held roll-call votes to sidestep Scott’s blockage, service officer promotions are usually noncontroversial and leaders rarely choose to expend valuable and finite floor time to advance them if there is not unanimous consent.

Congress

Senate panel approves Department of War name change

Published

15 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted this week to formally change the Pentagon’s name to the Department of War, moving a significant step closer to solidifying President Donald Trump’s rebrand of the Defense Department as permanent.

The move came during the committee’s closed-door deliberations over its defense policy bill, according to Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who announced the name change in explaining his vote against the legislation.

“It’s a juvenile move that sadly describes the reality of a president who has abandoned meaningful diplomacy in favor of starting doubtful wars in multiple locations and threatening even more,” he said in a statement.

Trump authorized the War Department moniker last year as part of a broader effort to present a more aggressive military to the world. The Pentagon has used it since, as have many Republicans on Capitol Hill.

But Congress must sign off for the name change to stick — and votes on both sides of the Capitol make it closer than ever to becoming a reality.

Details of the Armed Services vote, including who pushed for the change, were not immediately public. The committee voted 18-9 to advance the bill Wednesday evening and released initial details of the legislation Thursday.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the rebranding last week in its draft of the annual authorization legislation. The measure was adopted there in a narrow, party-line vote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth quickly praised the decision. “The Department of War will officially be restored soon,” he wrote in a social media post after the House panel’s vote.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a full renaming of the department could cost as much as $125 million. But supporters have argued changing the name would more accurately reflect the focus and strength of the department, sending a message to potential adversaries.

The name change’s inclusion in both the House and Senate panel’s drafts of the authorization bill — which has passed Congress annually for the last six decades — signals that the rebrand has a strong chance of becoming law.