Congress

‘You lose your credibility’: Democrats warn against turning a blind eye to a colleague’s misconduct

Published

7 months ago

March 26, 2026

House Democrats will soon have to choose between protecting an embattled colleague or insulating themselves from politically damaging accusations of hypocrisy.

The House Ethics Committee will begin the process Thursday of determining whether Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick warrants punishment as extreme as expulsion over accusations that she stole millions in FEMA funds and committed various campaign finance infractions.

The bipartisan panel that typically operates in secret is holding a public “trial” — the first in nearly 16 years — that will litigate those allegations as the third-term Florida Democrat faces federal criminal charges in her home state. Cherfilus-McCormick has maintained her innocence, saying “the full facts will make clear I did nothing wrong.”

House Democratic leaders have so far taken a hands-off approach to the saga.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his office say that Cherfilus-McCormick is “entitled to her day in court and the presumption of innocence,” and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar of California told reporters Wednesday he also would not “prejudge any outcome” of the Ethics Committee’s proceedings.

But after Democrats agitated for the removal of serial fraudster Rep. George Santos of New York ahead of a full Ethics process in 2023, the party could be vulnerable to political attacks if it doesn’t now police a credibly accused embezzler in its own midst.

“If they give us conclusions that this actually happened, and there’s no question of doubt as to the fact that laws were broken, then our colleague will have to face the consequences of that — it’s plain and simple,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) in an interview.

“You lose your credibility if you’re applying a different set of laws and a different standard to people of the other party,” he said. “I mean, how could we ever justify anything we do if we only apply that to Republicans, and we don’t follow the law?”

Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said her party has to be mindful of how voters perceive corruption in Washington.

“I think there’s pressure on all of us in elected office right now,” she said in an interview. “Neither party is trusted by the public that we’re going to fight corruption. … I know from talking with my own constituents that this is a real issue for both parties, not just Republicans.”

These warnings come as Democrats have repeatedly over the past several months declined to punish their own members as they faced allegations of wrongdoing. They restored Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas to his post as the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee after he received a pardon by President Donald Trump; he had taken a leave of absence while being scrutinized for allegations of bribery.

Most looked the other way when retiring Rep. Chuy García of Illinois boxed out other potential successors and orchestrated his chief of staff’s ascension to succeed him. And they helped Del. Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands dodge a Republican-led censure attempt following revelations she had texted convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during an Oversight Committee hearing.

Now they’ll have to decide what to do about Cherfilus-McCormick.

A House Ethics subcommittee will meet Thursday afternoon to consider a motion for summary judgment — in effect, whether or not to declare her guilty. If it does, the full panel will schedule a hearing for a later date to determine what punishment to recommend, and the House will then vote to execute it.

Members of the subcommittee could suggest something as minor, though embarrassing, as a reprimand or censure. It could also call for her expulsion. House GOP leaders believe they will have the requisite two-thirds majority to expel Cherfilus-McCormick and plan to force such a vote, according to three people granted anonymity to speak candidly about top House Republicans’ plans. But leaders are waiting to see what the panel recommends at the conclusion of the trial.

In a statement Wednesday, Cherfilus-McCormick said she was “innocent” and a “fighter,” and she criticized the Ethics Committee for proceeding with the trial despite her request for a delay that would give “my legal team reasonable time to prepare.” The committee already delayed the trial once after Cherfilus-McCormick lost her representation.

“I urge the Committee to follow its own precedents and uphold fairness and not allow this process to be driven by politics or numbers,” she said.

Santos is the most recent member of Congress to be expelled for using campaign donations for personal expenses — an action his colleagues took after the Ethics Committee issued a report substantiating the claims against him but before it could hold a trial and recommend punishment.

“Some of my Republican colleagues thought it was premature. They thought that he should have gotten a trial before we expelled him,” said Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who pushed for Santos’ removal from office. “I always said that he admitted to the very thing we were accusing him of was enough process — enough due process — to throw him out.”

Cherfilus-McCormick, in contrast, is pleading not guilty — which LaLota suggested could give Democrats some political cover to give her the benefit of the doubt. He added, however, “The accusations are totally gross. Kind of looks like she did it.”

The last time the House Ethics Committee held a formal trial was in 2010 for the late-Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was ultimately censured for a vast range of violations, including tax evasion.

Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) said his panel has been reviewing the Rangel proceedings as a guide for how to approach the Cherfilus-McCormick trial, saying the committee intends to “follow the map that has been laid out in the previous hearings.”

But the Rangel episode was also a deeply emotional and uncomfortable situation for many of the beloved veteran lawmaker’s peers, with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who was the chair of the Ethics Committee at that time, recalling in an interview that it was “a very depressing experience.”

Some House Democrats are now struggling with the uncomfortable task of having to potentially render career-ending judgment on a colleague.

“She’s a dear friend,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.). “I am waiting, I think, like everyone else, to see how all of this plays out in court. That’s something that we all have the benefit of getting. I think you are innocent until proven guilty.”

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

FBI raids Beverly Hills mansion tied to former Eric Swalwell donor

Published

7 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The FBI on Tuesday raided a Los Angeles area mansion connected to Stephen Cloobeck, a billionaire and former Democratic donor who was a close associate of former Rep. Eric Swalwell.

“The FBI is executing a federal search warrant” at the Beverly Hills mansion, which is listed on Cloobeck’s California business filings, a spokesperson for the FBI’s Los Angeles field office said in a statement.

No arrests are planned, and the affidavit for the search warrant remains sealed, the spokesperson said. The FBI search was related to “an ongoing criminal investigation,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement, declining to provide further details.

Cloobeck, a one-time California gubernatorial candidate, dropped his bid and donated more than $1 million to back Swalwell after he declared his candidacy. But he later said he had cut ties with the former lawmaker after sexual assault allegations against Swalwell emerged.

Swalwell resigned from Congress and dropped his gubernatorial bid but has denied the allegations. The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Swalwell that included an FBI search of his Washington home in August, the AP reported at the time.

Cloobeck was arrested in May after Los Angeles County prosecutors charged him with allegedly attempting to impede victim or witness testimony. He was later released on bail and pleaded not guilty to all counts in August.

Cloobeck and his attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said it has not taken part in the FBI’s Tuesday raid.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Democrats face reckoning on trans issues

Published

12 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A potential Democratic majority on Capitol Hill would face a serious split over whether to use its newfound power to protect transgender Americans.

Progressive lawmakers are pushing Democratic leaders to undo President Donald Trump’s attacks on trans people’s health care, participation in athletics and protections against discrimination.

But affordability, not culture war fights, has been the overriding theme of Democrats’ push to retake control of Congress. Many centrists fear any pivot away from that pledge would splinter the party, especially with many Democratic candidates openly rejecting some trans rights initiatives during their campaigns.

“You have to focus on what people care about,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (R-N.Y.) said in an interview. “Right now that’s affordability, and they want some relief. That’s what we should talk about.”

One senior House Democrat serving on House Appropriations, who was granted anonymity to discuss a private conversation, recalled personally asking Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries not to focus on trans issues or other flashpoints if the party wins the House.

Nearly a dozen lawmakers and advocates, however, argued for a two-pronged approach to protecting trans people: passing legislation to codify certain rights for trans individuals and using committee gavels to probe the Trump administration’s actions.

“We need to have an affirmative platform that protects and expands rights for LGBTQ people,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in an interview, while the Human Rights Campaign’s Ramiro Sarmiento said Congress “needs to use every tool it has to push back” on Trump.

Jeffries did not respond to a request for comment, but other top Democrats are responding to the conflict between affordability and civil rights by asking: Why not both?

“If we are telling people that we no longer value equality in this country, it’s really hard to build a fair economy,” House Minority Whip Katherine Clark said in an interview. “You can’t silo these issues out.”

What else we’re watching:

— THE GOP’S SMALL DONOR PROBLEM: The GOP’s cash advantage over Democrats this cycle has been thanks to a small group of megadonors like Elon Musk. But when it comes to the grassroots donor base, there’s a stark contrast between the parties. Small donations through major online platforms have dipped for Republicans since 2022 while they’re up for Democrats by about a third. That’s left vulnerable Republican candidates more reliant on Trump’s campaign war chest and super PACs.

— GOP CLIMATE BLOC FACES WIPEOUT: A midterm blue wave could decimate the cohort of Republicans who advocate for addressing climate change and pursuing clean-energy policies. The Conservative Climate Caucus, a House GOP group that pushes for those policies, could lose up to a third of its members in the midterms, with 11 of 66 membersin tight races and another 15 more retiring. That would shrink the pool of negotiating partners for Democrats as they plan on a renewed push for climate legislation.

Congress

Democrats’ affordability message collides with calls to defend transgender rights

Published

15 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Some Democrats are fired up to use their potential majorities in Congress next year and undo President Donald Trump’s attacks on transgender Americans. Others just want to focus on the cost of gas.

Ahead of the midterms, progressive lawmakers and congressional candidates are clashing with moderates in office and on the campaign trail over whether to pursue a legislative agenda that includes protecting trans people — whose health care, participation in athletics and protections against discrimination have been targeted by the administration.

“We need to have an affirmative platform that protects and expands rights for LGBTQ people,” said Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey in an interview.

He is among nearly a dozen lawmakers and advocates who said they want Democrats to pursue a two-pronged approach: pass legislation to codify certain rights for trans individuals, and use committee gavels to compel public testimony from Trump officials on their efforts to undermine protections for trans and nonbinary people.

But the need to tackle affordability, not culture war fights, has been the overriding theme of the Democrats’ push to retake control of Congress. Many Democrats believe that their promise to lower the cost of living will be the reason they win back majorities in the House or the Senate.

Many centrists fear any pivot away from that pledge would splinter a new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill, especially with some candidates openly rejecting some trans rights initiatives during their campaigns.

“You have to focus on what people care about,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. “Right now that’s affordability, and they want some relief. That’s what we should talk about.”

Rep. Marc Veasey, a moderate Texas Democrat who is retiring this year, said “cultural issues” including transgender rights are “something we should dive into once [Trump] is gone.”

“The American public is going to want to see our caucus focus on costs as long as he continues to affect the markets negatively with his tariffs and wars,” he said.

Progressive advocacy groups and their Hill allies say they can’t wait. Democrats, they argue, should hold hearings on the DOJ’s decision last summer to subpoena more than 20 doctors and clinics who’ve provided gender-affirming care to obtain potentially patient-identifying information, advocates say, leading some hospitals to stop providing youth gender affirming care.

They also want Democrats to challenge the Education Department’s move last month to officially rescind anti-discrimination protections for transgender students instituted under former President Joe Biden. They’re pushing, too, for an investigation of the Justice Department’s restrictions on gender-affirming care for incarcerated people and policy against placing prisoners in populations consistent with their gender identity — a move which has faced legal challenges.

In terms of legislation, Democrats are sure to encounter limitations so long as long as Trump is in office. The president is opposed to the cornerstone piece of LGBTQ+ advocates’ agenda, the Equality Act, which would amend civil rights laws to explicitly prohibit gender identity discrimination. It might not even have the votes to overcome a Senate filibuster and get to Trump’s desk.

Democrats likewise are sure to run into resistance in trying to attach pro-transgender policies to must-pass legislative vehicles, such as government spending bills or the annual defense policy package. The same goes for any attempts to overrule or modify the administration’s suggested changes to the 2030 Census, which include a proposal to remove questions about sexual orientation.

That reality should not be a deterrent, argued Ramiro Sarmiento, national press secretary at the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-LGBTQ+ civil rights advocacy group.

“Congress needs to use every tool it has to push back against the dismantling of protections at the federal level,” said Sarmiento.

He, along with Ian Thompson, senior legislative advocate at the ACLU, and Tyler Hack, founder and executive director of the Christopher Street Project — a hybrid PAC and nonprofit focused on building support for transgender rights in Congress — said their organizations have already begun preliminary conversations with several Democrats about the moves they could make to reverse or combat anti-trans-rights initiatives by Trump administration.

Those Democrats include longstanding LGBTQ+ rights champions like Markey and Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, plus progressive candidates like Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan and New York’s Claire Valdez and Brad Lander.

Hack conceded that trans protection issues are not what “most Americans are thinking about” but added, “Unfortunately, they are the issues that the White House is thinking about, and it’s the responsibility of Congress to be a check on their powers.”

The advocates say Trump’s executive orders and the GOP agenda have had drastic impacts on transgender Americans and their families, including by limiting their access to health care and identification documents that reflect their gender identity. It’s led some families with trans children to make plans to leave the country.

“I believe our role in Congress is to stand up for the little guys who are being picked on by bullies like Donald Trump and the Republicans,” Markey said about Democrats’ obligations.

They’re going up against Democrats who want nothing to do with any transgender-related fight as Republicans pummel their party for being out of touch and “woke.” GOP ads in nearly every battleground race have targeted their Democratic opponents over their party’s support for trans rights.

That has prompted numerous Democrats to run rebuttal ads, such as veteran Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur’s recent spot stating “boys should not play in girls’ sports.”

Alaska Democratic Senate nominee Mary Peltola told voters at a recent campaign event her “hope is that we don’t have to spend one second on a conversation about trans anything” in the next Congress, according to a Washington Sun report.

One senior House Democrat, who was granted anonymity to discuss a private conversation, recalled personally asking Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries not to focus on trans issues or other culture war flashpoints if the party wins the House.

Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did not respond to requests for comment on their plans for tackling trans-related issues in the coming Congress.

Advocates argue that issues of gender identity and equality are, in fact, pocketbook issues and cannot be simply shunted aside.

“When you are putting in place, for example, policies that say that you can’t get a driver’s license that accurately reflects who you are, or that you can’t use a public restroom, what you are telling people is they can’t work, they can’t hold a job or participate in the public life of our country,” the ACLU’s Thompson said. “Those have very significant economic consequences.”

Several senior House Democrats — Minority Whip Katherine Clark, the No. 2 leader, Rep. Ted Lieu of California, the No. 4 leader, and Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat — said much the same in interviews.

“If we are telling people that we no longer value equality in this country, it’s really hard to build a fair economy,” Clark said. “You can’t silo these issues out.”

Riley Rogerson and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.