DHS Investigates Swalwell Nanny Allegations as Congressional Expulsion Calls Grow

Rep. Eric Swalwell, a seven-term Democrat from California's East Bay, is confronting a cascading series of crises that have collapsed his gubernatorial campaign, triggered a federal criminal referral, and placed him at the center of what could become the most sweeping congressional expulsion push since the Civil War.

Two distinct tracks of investigation are now converging. The Department of Homeland Security is probing allegations that Swalwell employed a Brazilian nanny who lacked valid work authorization and paid her with campaign funds [1]. Separately, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has opened a criminal investigation into a former staffer's allegation that Swalwell sexually assaulted her in a New York hotel room in 2024 [3]. And in Congress, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) has announced she will force a floor vote to expel him — a move that could set off a bipartisan chain reaction targeting at least three other members [5].

The Nanny Allegations: What Is Actually Claimed

The DHS investigation stems from a complaint filed in February 2026 by Joel Gilbert, a California-based filmmaker and political activist [7]. Gilbert alleged that Swalwell hired Amanda Barbosa, a 33-year-old Brazilian national, as a live-in nanny in the fall of 2021 after she entered the United States on a J-1 au pair visa [10]. According to the complaint, Barbosa's work authorization expired at the end of December 2022, but she continued working for the Swalwell family through 2023 and 2024 [1].

Federal Election Commission records show a paper trail of campaign expenditures labeled as childcare reimbursements: $3,914 in 2021, $46,930 in 2022, and $38,905 in 2025 [10]. The total childcare-related campaign expenditures exceed $300,000, according to a review of FEC filings cited in multiple reports [7].

Source: Federal Election Commission

Data as of Apr 12, 2026CSV

The complaint raises two separate legal questions. First, whether Swalwell knowingly employed someone without valid work authorization — a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act that can carry civil and criminal penalties for employers. Second, whether campaign funds were improperly used for personal expenses, which would violate federal election law [10].

CBS News reported that USCIS confirmed it "has been collecting information on the allegations involving Congressman Eric Swalwell's hiring of a Brazilian national as a nanny without lawful work authorization" and "has referred this matter to DHS law enforcement for investigation" [1]. A Department of Labor complaint was also filed in April 2026 [10].

Swalwell has not issued a direct public statement addressing the nanny allegations specifically. His public denials have focused on the separate sexual misconduct claims [8].

The Source of the Complaint: Joel Gilbert's Track Record

The identity of the complainant is central to evaluating this story. Joel Gilbert is not a typical whistleblower. He is a filmmaker known for producing political documentaries that advance conspiracy theories. His 2012 film Dreams from My Real Father claimed without evidence that President Barack Obama's biological father was Frank Marshall Davis, a poet and labor activist, rather than Barack Obama Sr. The film was widely debunked [12]. He has also produced films claiming Paul McCartney is dead and that Elvis Presley was found alive — works he later reclassified as "mockumentaries" [12].

Gilbert has been a frequent guest on InfoWars and other right-wing media outlets [12]. In 2014, activist Loren Collins filed an FEC complaint against Gilbert over the undisclosed financing of millions of unsolicited DVDs of Dreams from My Real Father mailed to voters in swing states [12].

Gilbert's The Trayvon Hoax (2019) alleged witness fraud in the George Zimmerman trial [12]. He has made a career of targeting Democratic figures with provocative claims, a pattern that raises questions about the motivations behind the Swalwell complaint.

That said, the DHS referral exists independently of Gilbert's credibility. USCIS reviewed the underlying allegations and determined they warranted a law enforcement referral — a step that requires the agency to find at least a plausible basis for investigation [1]. FEC records showing campaign payments to Barbosa are public documents that can be verified regardless of who first flagged them [10]. Whether those payments constitute evidence of wrongdoing, or reflect legitimate and properly disclosed childcare expenses, remains unresolved.

The Sexual Assault Allegations: A Separate Crisis

The nanny probe arrived amid an already catastrophic week for Swalwell. On April 10, CNN published an investigation in which four women described sexual misconduct by the congressman, including a former staffer who alleged he raped her in a New York City hotel room in April 2024 [4].

The former staffer told CNN she was "heavily intoxicated" when she woke to Swalwell having sex with her, that she told him to stop, and that she sustained physical injuries including bruises, cuts, and bleeding [4]. She described a prior incident in 2019 in which she woke up naked in a hotel room with Swalwell after a night of drinking with no memory of what had occurred [13]. Three additional women reported receiving unsolicited explicit photos and messages from Swalwell via Snapchat [4].

The Manhattan District Attorney's office confirmed on April 12 that it had opened a criminal investigation into the 2024 allegation [3]. Within 24 hours of the CNN report, Swalwell lost all 21 of his congressional endorsements for his gubernatorial campaign, the California Teachers Association and multiple labor unions withdrew support, and his own campaign staff released an unsigned statement saying they were "horrified" [13][9].

Swalwell has categorically denied all sexual assault allegations. "These allegations of sexual assault are flat false. They are absolutely false. They did not happen," he said in a video posted to X on April 11 [4]. His legal team sent cease-and-desist letters to his accusers threatening defamation suits [13]. He suspended his bid for California governor on April 12 [9].

The Expulsion Push: Procedure, Precedent, and Politics

Against this backdrop, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna announced on April 12 that she would file a motion to expel Swalwell from the House [2]. The move immediately triggered a bipartisan escalation. Democrats responded by signaling they would force a parallel vote to expel Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX), who admitted to an extramarital affair with a married staff member and is under House Ethics investigation over sexual misconduct allegations involving text messages [5][6].

If either expulsion vote advances, NOTUS reported that votes on Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL), accused of domestic violence and financial misconduct, and Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), found guilty by the Ethics Committee of violating more than 24 House rules, could follow [6]. Bipartisan co-sponsors of the effort reportedly include Reps. Byron Donalds, Pramila Jayapal, Jared Huffman, Mike Lawler, and Nancy Mace [6].

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leadership have not publicly commented on the initiative [6].

Historical Precedent: Expulsion Is Extraordinarily Rare

Expulsion is the most severe sanction the House can impose. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution authorizes each chamber to expel a member for "disorderly Behaviour" with a two-thirds supermajority vote [14].

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

Data as of Apr 13, 2026CSV

In the entire history of the House, only six members have been expelled. Three were removed in 1861 for supporting the Confederacy. Rep. Michael Myers (D-PA) was expelled in 1980 after his bribery conviction in the ABSCAM scandal. Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) was expelled in 2002 following criminal convictions for corruption. Rep. George Santos (R-NY) became the sixth in 2023 after a House Ethics Committee investigation found "substantial evidence" of fraud [14][15].

No member has ever been expelled for conduct related to personal staff or domestic employment arrangements. The precedent is clear: expulsion has historically required either criminal conviction, a finding by the Ethics Committee, or conduct so egregious that it commanded overwhelming bipartisan consensus. The two-thirds threshold — approximately 290 votes in a full House — is deliberately high [14].

The Steelman Case: What Stands Independent of Gilbert

Critics of Swalwell argue that focusing on Gilbert's credibility is a deflection. The FEC records exist regardless of who first noticed them. If Barbosa was indeed working for Swalwell after her J-1 visa expired in December 2022, and if Swalwell knew or should have known her authorization had lapsed, the immigration violation is the same whether a conspiracy theorist or a career prosecutor brought it to light [10].

The campaign finance question is similarly independent of the messenger. Federal law permits campaign funds to be used for childcare only under specific circumstances established by the FEC in 2018, and the line between legitimate campaign-related childcare and personal expenses has been a subject of ongoing regulatory debate [10]. Whether Swalwell's reported $300,000-plus in childcare expenditures falls within permissible bounds is a factual and legal question that the FEC is equipped to adjudicate.

Social media photographs reportedly showing Barbosa continuing to provide childcare in 2023 and 2024 — after her work authorization expired — were cited in Gilbert's complaint [10]. If authentic, they represent documentation that exists independent of who compiled it.

The Broader Context: Selective Enforcement or Universal Standard?

The question of whether the scrutiny applied to Swalwell would survive equal application across Congress is unavoidable. Members of both parties employ domestic staff, nannies, and household workers. Immigration compliance for household employees is notoriously complex, and violations — both knowing and inadvertent — have historically been common enough to derail Cabinet nominations. The "nanny tax" issue forced the withdrawal of multiple nominees in the 1990s and 2000s, including Zoë Baird and Kimba Wood for Attorney General under President Clinton.

No systematic audit of congressional members' domestic employment practices exists. It is unknown how many members employ household workers whose immigration status or tax compliance could face similar scrutiny. The absence of such data makes it difficult to assess whether the focus on Swalwell reflects proportionate enforcement or selective targeting.

Political Stakes: A Safe Blue Seat

Swalwell represents California's 14th Congressional District, which carries a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+22 — making it one of the most Democratic districts in the country, roughly the 57th most Democratic nationally [16]. Expelling Swalwell would not flip the seat to Republicans. A special election in the district would almost certainly produce another Democrat.

This fact cuts in two directions. For those who believe expulsion is warranted, it undermines the accusation that the push is motivated by partisan seat math. For Swalwell's defenders, it raises the question of why Republicans would prioritize an expulsion that yields no partisan advantage unless the underlying conduct genuinely merits it — or unless the spectacle itself is the political objective.

Swalwell sits on the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees and is the ranking Democrat on subcommittees covering cybersecurity and the January 6 investigation [16]. His removal from these committees — a step short of expulsion — would deprive Democrats of a vocal and media-savvy member on panels central to oversight fights with the Republican majority.

What Happens Next

The procedural path forward has several chokepoints. Luna's expulsion resolution must be introduced and either privileged (forcing a vote within two legislative days) or referred to the Ethics Committee. If referred to Ethics, the timeline stretches considerably — the Santos investigation took months [14]. If privileged, a floor vote could come as early as the week of April 20, when the House returns from recess [2].

The two-thirds threshold means that expulsion requires substantial bipartisan support. No Republican votes alone can achieve it; significant Democratic defections would be necessary. Conversely, Democrats cannot expel Gonzales without Republican crossover votes. This mutual vulnerability is what makes the current moment volatile: if both parties agree to clean house, multiple members could fall. If neither blinks, both resolutions could fail.

The Manhattan DA investigation operates on its own timeline and is not dependent on congressional action. A criminal indictment — if one ultimately results — would raise the political pressure on Swalwell significantly but would not automatically trigger removal from office. Members of Congress have served while under indictment and even after conviction; only their colleagues can remove them [14].

The DHS investigation into the nanny allegations is at an even earlier stage. USCIS has referred the matter, but no charges have been filed, no findings have been published, and the investigation's scope and timeline are unknown [1].

What is clear is that Swalwell faces a convergence of legal and political threats without modern precedent for a sitting member: a federal immigration investigation, a state criminal probe, a potential expulsion vote, and the collapse of a statewide campaign — all within a single week. Whether these threads produce accountability or unravel under scrutiny will depend on evidence that, in most cases, has yet to be made public.