Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
This resolution directs the House of Representatives to expel Representative Eric Swalwell from membership. It uses the House's constitutional authority to remove a member for misconduct and seeks to end his service in the House as a disciplinary measure. Expulsion is decided by the House itself and does not involve the Senate or the President. If adopted, the resolution would vacate his House seat.
Expulsion of a Member requires a two-thirds vote in the House and is an internal disciplinary action that does not go to the Senate or the President. The resolution was referred to the House Committee on Ethics for consideration prior to any floor action.
This House resolution would expel Representative Eric Swalwell from the U.S. House of Representatives.
It cites investigative reporting alleging a sexual relationship with a subordinate staffer, including an allegation of sexual activity while the staffer was too intoxicated to consent, and notes a Manhattan District Attorney investigation.
The resolution invokes Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution and House conduct rules as authority for expulsion.
Narrow, punitive measure requiring supermajority; expulsions are historically rare and often replaced by resignation or lesser sanctions absent overwhelming evidence.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is clear and direct about its objective (the expulsion of a named Member) and cites constitutional and House Rule authorities. It is minimally constructed: the operative directive is unambiguous but the resolution omits procedural specifics, evidentiary findings, safeguards, and administrative follow-up.
Immediate expulsion versus awaiting Ethics and DA findings
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Immediate expulsion versus awaiting Ethics and DA findings
Likely supportive of removal on grounds of abuse of power and protecting staff, but cautious about due process.
Wants swift accountability for sexual misconduct while ensuring investigations substantiate allegations.
Concerned about institutional credibility and staff safety.
Cautious and process-focused: supports accountability but prefers established investigative channels.
Would likely urge the Ethics Committee and criminal investigators to conclude before endorsing expulsion.
Worried about precedent and legal/constitutional soundness.
Likely supportive of expulsion as appropriate accountability for alleged misconduct that discredits the House.
Sees removal as restoring institutional integrity and protecting staff, while favoring adherence to procedural fairness to avoid claims of partisan targeting.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, punitive measure requiring supermajority; expulsions are historically rare and often replaced by resignation or lesser sanctions absent overwhelming evidence.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Immediate expulsion versus awaiting Ethics and DA findings
Narrow, punitive measure requiring supermajority; expulsions are historically rare and often replaced by resignation or lesser sanctions ab…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is clear and direct about its objective (the expulsion of a named Member) and cites constitutional and House Rule authorities. It is minimally constructed: the operat…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.