Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
This resolution would remove Representative LaMonica McIver from her House seat by directing the House to expel her for alleged misconduct. Under the Constitution the House can expel a Member, and expulsion takes effect only if the House votes to adopt the resolution with a two-thirds majority. If adopted, the Member would immediately lose her seat; this is an internal House action and is not a law and does not go to the President. The resolution has been referred to the House Committee on Ethics before any final floor vote.
Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote of the House; this is a chamber-only action that does not require the Senate or the President. The resolution was referred to the House Committee on Ethics prior to any floor consideration.
This House resolution would expel Representative LaMonica McIver from the U.S. House of Representatives.
It cites an incident on May 9, 2025, at an ICE detention facility where McIver allegedly entered a secure area and used force against federal law enforcement, notes Department of Justice charges under 18 U.S.C. §111(a)(1), and refers to video evidence and a prior House precedent of expelling a Member prior to conviction.
The resolution invokes Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution to remove Representative McIver from office.
Simple, low-cost measure but requires rare supermajority and touches a highly divisive personnel matter with no built-in compromises.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly framed, narrowly targeted administrative action that uses explicit constitutional and rule-based authority to expel a Member. The operative remedy is stated unambiguously and the factual allegations are documented within the preamble.
Due process: liberals worry about pre-conviction expulsion
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Due process: liberals worry about pre-conviction expulsion
Generally supportive of holding Members accountable for unlawful conduct, but concerned about precedent and due process if expulsion occurs before conviction.
Emphasizes equal application of discipline and caution against partisan uses of expulsion powers.
Likely to favor expulsion if the facts and video clearly show assault on federal officers, while wanting a fair, orderly process.
Sees importance in preserving institutional credibility but wary of rushed, politically driven removals.
Strongly supportive of immediate expulsion given allegations of physically assaulting federal law enforcement and DOJ charges.
Emphasizes law-and-order, protecting officers, and preserving House credibility.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Simple, low-cost measure but requires rare supermajority and touches a highly divisive personnel matter with no built-in compromises.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Due process: liberals worry about pre-conviction expulsion
Simple, low-cost measure but requires rare supermajority and touches a highly divisive personnel matter with no built-in compromises.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly framed, narrowly targeted administrative action that uses explicit constitutional and rule-based authority to expel a Member. The operative remedy is sta…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.