House Ethics Committee Convicts Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick on 25 Charges

After a nearly seven-hour televised hearing that stretched past midnight, a bipartisan House Ethics subcommittee found Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) guilty of 25 ethics violations on March 27, 2026 [1]. The verdict caps a three-year investigation into allegations that the congresswoman diverted $5 million in federal disaster relief funds to bankroll her congressional campaign—and puts her one step closer to becoming only the seventh member expelled from the House of Representatives [2].

The Charges: 25 Violations Across Four Categories

The Ethics subcommittee originally considered 27 counts of alleged violations adopted in December 2025 [3]. After deliberating past midnight, the panel of four Democrats and four Republicans found "clear and convincing evidence" on 25 of those counts [1].

The charges break down into four categories:

• 18 counts of campaign finance violations, centered on an alleged straw donor scheme that routed federal funds through family members and third-party organizations to Cherfilus-McCormick's 2022 special election campaign [1][4]
• 5 counts of false financial disclosures, alleging she failed to accurately report assets and income on mandatory congressional financial disclosure forms [1]
• 3 counts of misusing official funds, tied to the alleged diversion of FEMA contract payments [4]
• 1 count of "lack of candor" with the Ethics Committee during its investigation [1]

Two counts were dismissed. Count 16, involving money laundering allegations tied to a Haitian entity called Petrogaz-Haiti, lacked sufficient proof [3]. Count 27, a second allegation of lack of candor, was also found unproven [3].

The $5 Million FEMA Scheme

At the center of the case is a massive overpayment from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In July 2021, a Florida state agency mistakenly deposited $5 million into the bank account of Trinity Healthcare Services, a company owned by Cherfilus-McCormick's family that held a FEMA-funded contract to register people for COVID-19 vaccinations [5].

According to the federal indictment unsealed in November 2025, Cherfilus-McCormick and her brother, Edwin Cherfilus—who also served as her chief of staff and accountant—never returned the overpayment [5]. Instead, prosecutors allege they moved the funds through multiple bank accounts "to disguise its source" [5].

The money trail, as outlined by investigators, follows a specific path:

• On June 23, 2021, $2 million was transferred directly to Cherfilus-McCormick; she moved it to her campaign the following day [1]
• More than $1.1 million was subsequently transferred to accounts connected to her congressional campaign [5]
• Over $500,000 was funneled through outside organizations that made expenditures on behalf of the campaign [5]
• The money was returned "nearly in full" only after the filing period ended on July 2, 2021 [1]

Brittney Pescatore, the Ethics Committee's Director of Investigations, summarized the allegations during the hearing: "Fundamentally, the allegations before you involve a member of Congress misleading constituents, the FEC and the House" [3].

Source: GDELT Project

Data as of Mar 27, 2026CSV

A Rare Public Trial

The March 26 hearing was only the second public Ethics Committee trial in 16 years [3]. The last occurred in 2010, when Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) faced the panel on charges of failing to report assets and improperly raising funds [6]. Rangel was found guilty on 11 of 13 counts and subsequently censured by the full House, though he continued serving until his retirement in 2017 [6].

The subcommittee reviewed more than 33,000 documents totaling hundreds of thousands of pages and conducted 28 witness interviews during its investigation [1][3].

Cherfilus-McCormick did not speak publicly during the hearing, conferring only privately with her attorney [1]. The proceeding was broadcast live, drawing intense media attention and raising the profile of an investigation that had been building largely behind closed doors since 2023.

The Defense: Procedural Objections and Cultural Context

Attorney William Barzee, who began representing Cherfilus-McCormick just three weeks before the hearing, mounted a two-pronged defense focused on procedural fairness and the nature of the financial arrangements [3].

On procedure, Barzee argued the House process was "rushed" and should be halted pending her federal criminal trial, scheduled for April 2026 [1]. He contended the public hearing would prejudice her criminal case, warning the subcommittee: "You can't unring the bell. Once you ring the bell, it's going to reverberate" [3]. He also objected that the defense was denied the ability to cross-examine committee witnesses and submit competing evidence, calling the proceeding a "travesty of justice" [7].

On the substance of the campaign finance allegations, Barzee acknowledged that "many mistakes were made with her campaign and the way they reported the funds" but denied that Cherfilus-McCormick explicitly broke the law [7]. He argued that the funds loaned to her campaign derived from informal profit-sharing arrangements within her family's business, explaining: "In the Haitian American community, family members don't put things in writing like that. They shake hands and they trust each other" [3].

The subcommittee rejected both the request for postponement and for closed-door proceedings [3].

Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.) drew a clear line between the House proceeding and the criminal case: "It is not a criminal trial. It is an inquiry to determine whether Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick's conduct violated House rules" [3].

Historical Context: Ethics Enforcement in the House

House expulsions are extraordinarily rare. Setting aside the Civil War era—when several members were expelled for supporting the Confederacy—only six House members have been expelled in the chamber's history [8]. The most recent was Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), removed in December 2023 by a bipartisan 311-114 vote before his federal criminal trial concluded [6].

The Santos case looms large over the Cherfilus-McCormick proceedings. In 2023, all but two House Democrats voted to expel Santos for alleged campaign finance violations [6]. Republicans have since pointed to that vote, questioning whether Democrats will hold one of their own to the same standard [2][6].

The range of sanctions the Ethics Committee can recommend includes:

Cherfilus-McCormick's 25 guilty counts significantly exceed recent precedent. Rangel was convicted on 11 counts in 2010 [6]. The Santos Ethics Committee report, while extensive, did not follow the formal adjudicatory hearing process used here [6].

Selective Enforcement or Proportionate Response?

A question underlying the case is whether 25 charges involving campaign finance reporting and financial disclosures represents proportionate enforcement. Late financial filings and paperwork errors by members of Congress are not uncommon—the Office of Congressional Ethics regularly flags disclosure deficiencies across party lines.

However, the Cherfilus-McCormick case goes well beyond paperwork. The Ethics Committee's findings describe an alleged scheme to divert $5 million in federal disaster funds and use them to finance a congressional campaign through straw donors and intermediary organizations [1][4]. The investigation reviewed 33,000 documents, conducted 28 witness interviews, and took three years to complete [1]. Two of the 27 original counts were dismissed for insufficient evidence, suggesting the panel exercised some degree of discrimination in evaluating the charges [3].

The parallel federal indictment—carrying 15 criminal counts and a potential 53-year prison sentence—further distinguishes this case from routine disclosure failures [5].

The Political Fallout

The verdict has put Democratic leadership in a difficult position. In 2023, Democrats overwhelmingly voted to expel Santos, establishing a standard that some now argue must apply regardless of party [6].

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) was among the first Democrats to call for action after the verdict: "You can't crime your way into legitimate power. Since she was found guilty, she should resign or be removed" [1].

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has taken a more cautious approach, declining to say whether Cherfilus-McCormick should remain in Congress [1]. House Democratic leadership has argued that expulsion should not occur before the criminal trial is resolved [9]—a position that contrasts with the party's stance on Santos, who was expelled before his trial concluded.

Cherfilus-McCormick has characterized the federal prosecution as a political "witch hunt" conducted by the Trump Justice Department [7]. The bipartisan nature of the Ethics Committee verdict—with four Democrats joining four Republicans in the finding—complicates that framing.

Impact on Florida's 20th District

Cherfilus-McCormick represents Florida's 20th Congressional District, which covers predominantly Black-majority areas in and around Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach [10]. The district carries a Cook Partisan Voter Index of D+22, making it the 46th most Democratic district in the country [10].

Her path to Congress was itself remarkable—and contentious. In the November 2021 Democratic primary to fill the seat left vacant by the death of longtime Rep. Alcee Hastings, Cherfilus-McCormick defeated Broward County Commissioner Dale Holness by just five votes after a recount [11]. She then won the January 2022 special election with 79% of the vote against Republican Jason Mariner [11].

Holness is now among the candidates running in the August 2026 Democratic primary for the seat, along with Luther Campbell, Mark Douglas, and Elijah Manley [10]. If Cherfilus-McCormick is expelled or resigns before the primary, a special election would be required to fill the vacancy. In a D+22 district, the winner of any Democratic primary would be the overwhelming favorite in a general election.

What Happens Next

The immediate timeline is as follows:

Mid-April 2026: The full Ethics Committee will convene after the House's two-week spring recess to recommend sanctions [1][3]. The recommendation could range from censure to a formal recommendation of expulsion.

April 2026: Cherfilus-McCormick's federal criminal trial is scheduled to begin, though it may be delayed [1]. She has pleaded not guilty to all 15 federal counts [5].

House floor vote: If the Ethics Committee recommends expulsion, the full House would vote. Expulsion requires a two-thirds supermajority (290 votes in a full 435-member House). Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) has said he plans to force an expulsion vote as soon as the Ethics Committee process concludes [9].

Appeal: There is no formal appeal mechanism within the House Ethics Committee process. Cherfilus-McCormick's criminal case can be appealed through the federal court system following any conviction.

The convergence of the ethics verdict and the impending criminal trial creates an unusual situation. If the House moves to expel before the criminal trial, it would mirror the Santos precedent. If it waits, Cherfilus-McCormick could continue serving—and voting—while facing 15 federal criminal charges and 25 proven ethics violations.

The 800,000 residents of Florida's 20th District, meanwhile, face an extended period of uncertain representation. Their congresswoman is preparing for a federal criminal trial, may be expelled from the body in which she serves, and stands accused of funding her very election with stolen disaster relief money intended to help communities like theirs.