The Expulsion Spiral: How a Wave of Misconduct Cases Is Testing the Limits of Congressional Self-Policing

In the 250-year history of the U.S. House of Representatives, only six members have ever been expelled [1]. In April 2026 alone, three members resigned under the threat of removal, a fourth faces an active expulsion resolution, and the member who filed that resolution is herself the target of a retaliatory one [2][3]. The House has never seen anything like it.

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced a resolution on April 20 to expel Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., citing allegations of sexual misconduct, stolen valor, and profiting from federal contracts while serving on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees [4]. Mills fired back within hours, telling Fox News Digital that Mace was "setting a very dangerous precedent" and confirming he had drafted his own expulsion resolution targeting her over an ongoing ethics investigation into her lodging reimbursements [5]. Speaker Mike Johnson weighed in bluntly: "We have a process here. So, no, I'm not in favor" of Republicans expelling each other [6].

The standoff between Mace and Mills is the sharpest edge of a broader reckoning. But the constitutional, procedural, and political questions it raises — about what conduct warrants expulsion, who gets to decide, and whether the two-thirds threshold is sufficient to prevent abuse — cut far deeper than any single member's fate.

A Month of Departures

The Mace-Mills clash did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the latest episode in a month that has already reshaped the House.

On April 14, Reps. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, resigned moments before colleagues were set to introduce dual expulsion resolutions against them [7]. Swalwell faced accusations from five women, including a former staffer, alleging sexual misconduct or rape [7]. Gonzales faced allegations that he harassed a former staffer, Regina Santos-Aviles, sending sexually explicit messages she repeatedly asked him to stop; she later died by suicide [7].

On April 21, Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., resigned minutes before the Ethics Committee was to consider punishment for allegations she stole $5 million in pandemic relief funds to finance her 2021 campaign [8][9]. House Democrats had indicated they would vote to expel her if the resolution reached the floor [10].

Source: NBC News, CNN, NPR

Data as of Apr 22, 2026CSV

That leaves Mills as the sole remaining target — and Mace as his would-be executioner who may herself end up in the crosshairs.

The Allegations Against Cory Mills

Mace's resolution catalogs a series of accusations that the House Ethics Committee has been investigating since August 2024 [4][11].

Sexual misconduct and domestic violence. In February 2025, D.C. police responded to Mills' residence after a 27-year-old woman reported a physical altercation. She later recanted, but the Washington Post raised questions about the non-arrest, citing body-camera footage [11]. Separately, Mills' ex-girlfriend Lindsey Langston obtained a restraining order in October 2025, alleging he threatened to release intimate videos and harass her future relationships [11].

Federal contracts. Mills' companies — Pacem Defense and ALS — secured close to $1 million in federal munitions contracts since January 2023 while he served on committees with direct oversight of defense procurement, a potential violation of House rules [4][11].

Military service claims. Multiple service members have questioned whether Mills actually participated in the incidents for which he received a 2021 Bronze Star for actions purportedly taken in Iraq in 2003 [11].

Campaign finance. The Office of Congressional Conduct flagged possible excessive contributions and financial disclosure misrepresentations, though the Federal Election Commission dismissed some related allegations [11].

Mills has denied all allegations. "The bottom line is there is absolutely no criminal or civil investigation that's even open about me," he told Fox News Digital [5]. He has drawn a distinction between himself and the members who resigned: "One, I'm not married, so there's one thing. Two, I've never sexually harassed and/or had any complaints by any staffers" [11].

Mace's Own Ethics Cloud

Mills' counterattack rests on a simple argument: if pending ethics investigations are grounds for expulsion, Mace should face the same standard.

The House Ethics Committee confirmed on January 16, 2026, that it is reviewing a referral from the Office of Congressional Conduct concerning Mace's lodging reimbursements [12]. The OCC alleges Mace consistently claimed the maximum allowable reimbursement from a congressional housing program despite owning only a 28% stake in the property she co-owned with her ex-fiancé, Patrick Bryant — resulting in roughly $9,500 in excess payments over two years [12][13].

Mace has called the investigation a "witch hunt" driven by fabricated documents submitted by Bryant, against whom she has made separate allegations of sexual misconduct on the House floor [14]. She is also running for governor of South Carolina, a campaign she formally launched in March 2026 [15].

Mills seized on the parallel: "She's saying as long as you're under an ethics investigation — oh but wait — Ms. Mace is under an ethics investigation for allegedly renting her own home to herself as an Airbnb, utilizing taxpayer funding" [5].

The Constitutional Standard — Or Lack of One

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that each chamber "may punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member" [16]. Unlike the impeachment clause, which specifies "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," the Expulsion Clause contains no substantive definition of what conduct warrants removal [16].

The Founders viewed the two-thirds supermajority requirement — added at James Madison's insistence — as the primary safeguard against abuse, rather than any limiting language about the type of offense [16][17]. The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the scope of the expulsion power, though it has stated in dicta that the authority "extends to all cases where the offence is such as in the judgment of the Senate is inconsistent with the trust and duty of a member" [16].

In practice, this means expulsion is whatever two-thirds of the House says it is. The six successful expulsions break down as follows:

Source: U.S. House History, Art & Archives

Data as of Apr 22, 2026CSV

Three members were expelled in 1861 for supporting the Confederacy [1]. Rep. Michael Myers, D-Pa., was expelled in 1980 after accepting a bribe in the Abscam sting, voting 376-30 [1]. Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, was expelled in 2002 after a federal conviction for bribery, fraud, racketeering, and tax evasion, in a 420-1 vote [1]. Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., was expelled in 2023 after the Ethics Committee concluded he had "sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit," though he had not yet been convicted at the time of the vote [18].

The Santos precedent is the one most relevant to the current moment. Santos was expelled without a criminal conviction, based on the Ethics Committee's findings alone. If Mills can be expelled on the strength of an ongoing ethics investigation — before the committee has even issued a final report — that would represent a further lowering of the bar.

Procedural Safeguards and Comparative Systems

The House process for expulsion follows a general pattern: an ethics investigation, a committee report, and then a floor vote requiring two-thirds [17]. But these are norms, not requirements. Any member can introduce a privileged expulsion resolution at any time, forcing floor action.

The Senate's process is structurally identical — same constitutional text, same two-thirds threshold [19]. The Senate has expelled 15 members in its history, all but one during the Civil War; the last Senate expulsion was in 1862 [19].

Other democratic legislatures operate differently. The UK House of Commons retains the power of expulsion but requires only a simple majority vote — a lower bar than the U.S. system [20]. However, the Commons has not expelled a member in decades, relying instead on suspension and the recall petition process introduced in 2015, which allows constituents to trigger a by-election if a member is suspended for 10 or more sitting days [20].

Canada's House of Commons can also expel members by simple majority but has used the power only once, in 1947 [20]. The lower threshold in both the UK and Canadian systems has not led to frequent expulsions, suggesting that political norms and electoral accountability serve as de facto checks even when formal procedural barriers are lower.

The Precedent Debate

Mills' central argument — echoed by Speaker Johnson and other Republicans — is that Mace's resolution threatens to turn expulsion into a routine political weapon [5][6].

"This is political theatrics," Mills said. "She's essentially saying she's judge, juror and executioner" [5]. The logic of his position is straightforward: if members can be expelled based on allegations under active investigation — before any adjudication — then virtually any member facing an ethics complaint becomes vulnerable. The House Ethics Committee currently has open matters involving multiple members across both parties; an expulsion-on-accusation standard could theoretically be applied to any of them.

The counterargument is equally direct. Mace framed the choice starkly: "Any Member who votes to keep him here is voting to protect a woman beater and a fraud. He needs to be expelled immediately" [5]. Her supporters argue that Mills' case involves allegations qualitatively different from routine ethics complaints — domestic violence, stalking, stolen valor, and self-dealing on defense contracts are not the same as a disputed housing reimbursement.

Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., publicly broke with colleagues who she said were protecting Mills, writing on social media in response to a Politico report: "Not this Republican" [21].

The steelman case for expulsion holds that the precedent concern, while legitimate in the abstract, is being deployed strategically. Mills enjoys a February 2026 endorsement from President Trump, who called him an "America First Patriot" [11]. Critics contend that the "dangerous precedent" framing allows allies to shield a colleague from accountability by raising procedural objections that would not be raised if the member lacked powerful backers. Under this view, the real precedent being set is not "expulsion without conviction" but rather "protection from consequences for members with the right connections."

Factional Lines

The expulsion fight maps imperfectly onto the House's internal Republican factions.

Mills, endorsed by Trump and aligned with the House Freedom Caucus's priorities, draws support from the populist right [11]. Mace has positioned herself as a disruptor willing to take on members of her own party — a posture that tracks with her gubernatorial ambitions but puts her at odds with leadership [15][6].

Speaker Johnson's opposition to intra-party expulsions reflects institutional caution and a practical concern: with the GOP majority at 216-213 following Swalwell, Gonzales, and Cherfilus-McCormick's departures, every seat matters [7][8]. Expelling Mills would further narrow the margin and trigger a special election in his Florida district.

The slim majority creates a paradox. The two-thirds threshold means Mills' expulsion would require significant Democratic support regardless of what Republicans do. But the political cost of being seen to protect an accused colleague — or of losing another seat — puts swing-district Republicans in a bind heading into the 2026 midterms.

What Happens to Members Who Survive

History offers limited but instructive data on what happens to members who survive expulsion attempts.

Santos survived two expulsion votes before succumbing on the third in December 2023 [18]. Before the modern era, several members who avoided expulsion were instead censured — a lesser sanction that carries no removal but remains on the official record. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., was censured in 2010 after an ethics investigation found he had committed 11 violations, including tax evasion and misuse of official resources; he was re-elected afterward and served until 2017 [1].

The broader pattern suggests that expulsion attempts, even when they fail, often mark the beginning of a member's decline. The public airing of allegations, the formal committee findings, and the recorded vote create a political liability that opponents can exploit in subsequent elections. Whether that constitutes "deterrence" depends on the definition — members may continue serving, but rarely without cost.

The Slim Margin Problem

The practical stakes extend beyond any individual member. With the House majority at 216-213, the loss of even one additional Republican seat through expulsion or resignation could paralyze the chamber's ability to pass legislation along party lines [7].

This arithmetic helps explain why Speaker Johnson has been reluctant to support any expulsion effort. It also explains why Mace's push is viewed by some colleagues as reckless — not because Mills' alleged conduct is defensible, but because the timing and method threaten the party's governing capacity.

Democrats, for their part, face their own calculation. Supporting Mills' expulsion would narrow the Republican majority further but could also validate a tool that might be turned against their own members in the future. The Cherfilus-McCormick case demonstrated that both parties are willing to abandon colleagues when the evidence is severe enough [10].

What Comes Next

Mace has not specified whether she will use procedural tools to force a floor vote on Mills' expulsion [6]. The resolution could be referred to the Ethics Committee — effectively delaying action until the investigation concludes — or brought to the floor through a discharge petition or a privileged resolution.

Mills, meanwhile, has signaled he welcomes a vote. "Bring it on," he has said, betting that fewer than two-thirds of the House will vote to remove a sitting member based on allegations that remain under investigation [5].

The outcome will depend on whether enough members — in both parties — conclude that Mills' alleged conduct crosses the line from "serious ethics matter" to "disorderly Behaviour" warranting removal. The Constitution provides no guidance on where that line falls. Two hundred and fifty years of precedent suggests the House prefers to let voters decide. April 2026 is testing whether that preference still holds.