House Speaker Johnson Backs Expulsion of Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick Over Ethics Violations

House Speaker Mike Johnson has thrown his weight behind expelling Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), calling it a "harsh penalty necessary" for a member who "egregiously violated the law and exploited taxpayers" [1]. The declaration came after a bipartisan House Ethics subcommittee found 25 of 27 charges proven against the Florida Democrat by "clear and convincing evidence" — the committee's highest evidentiary standard [2]. But Johnson's embrace of what he himself called "the political death penalty" sits uneasily next to his track record on ethics enforcement, and arrives in the middle of a widening House misconduct crisis that has already claimed two resignations and could trigger expulsion votes against members of both parties.

The Charges: $5 Million in FEMA Funds

The case against Cherfilus-McCormick centers on a $5 million overpayment of FEMA funds to Trinity Healthcare Services, a company co-founded by her mother and stepfather that held a federal contract to register people for COVID-19 vaccinations [3]. Federal prosecutors allege that instead of returning the overpayment, Cherfilus-McCormick and her brother routed the money through multiple bank accounts to disguise its origin [3]. More than $1.1 million was subsequently transferred to accounts connected to her 2022 congressional campaign [4]. Within two months of the overpayment, prosecutors allege, more than $100,000 was spent on a 3-carat yellow diamond ring for Cherfilus-McCormick [3].

The Ethics Committee's charges break down into specific categories: 18 counts of campaign finance violations, five counts of false financial disclosures, three counts of misusing official funds, and one count of "lack of candor" with the Ethics Committee [2]. The adjudicatory subcommittee found 25 of these 27 counts proven after a nearly seven-hour televised hearing on March 26, 2026 [5]. The evidentiary standard used — "clear and convincing evidence" — is higher than the preponderance standard used in civil cases, though lower than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt [6].

Cherfilus-McCormick faces a parallel criminal proceeding. She was indicted in November 2025 on 15 federal counts, including theft of government funds, money laundering, making and receiving straw donor contributions, and aiding the preparation of a false tax return [3]. If convicted, she faces up to 53 years in prison [3]. She has pleaded not guilty to all criminal charges [4].

The Defense: Due Process and Profit-Sharing

Cherfilus-McCormick and her legal team have contested the proceedings on both substantive and procedural grounds. Her attorney, William Barzee, argued that a "profit-sharing agreement" for the family company meant she was "entitled to every single penny that she received" from Trinity Healthcare after the FEMA overpayment [7]. However, lawmakers were skeptical of this argument — the supporting evidence amounted to an undated chart [7].

On procedural grounds, Cherfilus-McCormick issued a statement saying she was "deeply disappointed the Committee chose to move forward with this trial while denying my legal team reasonable time to prepare," calling it a violation of "due process and the fundamental rights every American is entitled to under our Constitution" [7]. Barzee also argued that the pending federal charges hindered her ability to respond to the Ethics panel because of self-incrimination concerns [7].

Investigation Timeline: Three Years in the Making

The Ethics Committee investigation has moved through multiple phases over three years:

• 2023: The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), an independent nonpartisan body, referred the matter to the House Ethics Committee, recommending a formal probe [8].
• December 2025: The investigative subcommittee adopted a Statement of Alleged Violations after reviewing more than 33,000 documents and conducting 28 witness interviews [6].
• January 2026: A separate adjudicatory subcommittee was formed to evaluate the findings [6].
• March 26, 2026: The adjudicatory subcommittee held a televised public hearing — a rarity in House ethics proceedings [5].
• March 27, 2026: The subcommittee found 25 of 27 counts proven [2].
• April 21, 2026: The full Ethics Committee is scheduled to hold a public hearing to determine what sanction to recommend to the full House [9].

The sanctions hearing has not yet occurred. Johnson's endorsement of expulsion is, in procedural terms, getting ahead of the Ethics Committee's formal recommendation.

How Rare Is Expulsion?

Expulsion is the most severe sanction the House can impose, and it is extraordinarily rare. In the chamber's 237-year history, only six members have been expelled [10]. Three were removed during the Civil War for supporting the Confederacy. In the modern era, only three members have been expelled: Rep. Michael Myers (D-PA) in 1980 for his role in the Abscam bribery scandal, Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) in 2002 after conviction on bribery and racketeering charges, and Rep. George Santos (R-NY) in 2023 for fraud [10][11].

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

Data as of Apr 14, 2026CSV

Far more common outcomes for ethics violations are censure, reprimand, fines, or resignation before any sanction is imposed. Since 1980, the House has censured five members, reprimanded ten, and fined four — while twelve members resigned before sanctions were levied [10].

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

Data as of Apr 14, 2026CSV

Santos's 2023 expulsion broke precedent in one significant way: he was expelled before being convicted at trial, a step the House had never taken outside of Civil War-era cases [11]. That precedent looms over the Cherfilus-McCormick case, since she too has been indicted but not convicted.

The Constitutional Threshold

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides that "each House may, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." With the current House split at 217 Republicans to 214 Democrats [12], a two-thirds threshold based on all members present and voting would require substantial bipartisan support for any expulsion.

If all 431 current members were present, 288 votes would be needed. Republicans alone cannot reach that number. Any expulsion of Cherfilus-McCormick would require significant Democratic participation.

On that front, there are signs of bipartisan support. More than half a dozen House Democrats called on Cherfilus-McCormick to resign after the ethics findings were announced [13]. However, an outright vote for expulsion is a more politically fraught step, and no formal whip count has been published. Among Republicans who have publicly supported expulsion are Reps. Lauren Boebert, Byron Donalds, Bryan Fitzpatrick, Mike Lawler, Anna Paulina Luna, Nancy Mace, and Addison McDowell [12]. Democrats who have signaled support include Reps. Jared Huffman, Pramila Jayapal, Julie Johnson, Ro Khanna, Adrienne Adams Leger Fernandez, Emily Randall, and Nydia Velazquez [12].

The Double Standard Question: Santos and Gaetz

Johnson's support for expelling Cherfilus-McCormick contrasts sharply with his handling of previous ethics cases involving Republican members.

George Santos: When the House voted to expel Santos in December 2023, Johnson voted against the resolution. He cited "real reservations" about expelling a member who had not been convicted of a crime, warning of the precedent it would set [14]. Johnson, along with Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Majority Whip Tom Emmer, and Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, all voted no [14]. Santos was nonetheless expelled 311-114, with 105 Republicans breaking with leadership [11].

Cherfilus-McCormick, like Santos at the time of his expulsion, has been indicted but not convicted. Johnson has not publicly addressed why the due-process concerns he raised in the Santos case do not apply here.

Matt Gaetz: The bipartisan Ethics Committee found "substantial evidence" that Gaetz violated statutory rape law, paid women for sex, used illegal drugs, accepted improper gifts, and obstructed the committee's investigation [15]. When Gaetz resigned from Congress in November 2024 after being nominated as Attorney General, Johnson "strongly requested" that the Ethics Committee withhold its report, arguing that releasing it after Gaetz left the committee's jurisdiction would "open a Pandora's box" [16]. The House later rejected Democrat-led efforts to force the report's release [17].

A former Republican chairman of the House Ethics Committee said at the time that "given the magnitude of what they're alleging over Matt Gaetz, there could have been an expulsion recommendation" [15]. Johnson made no public call for Gaetz's expulsion while he served in the House.

Johnson's office has not offered specific distinctions for this differential treatment beyond the procedural argument that Gaetz had already resigned and was thus no longer subject to House jurisdiction.

The Wider Ethics Crisis

The Cherfilus-McCormick case is unfolding against a backdrop of a broader House ethics crisis that has intensified in April 2026. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) announced his resignation on April 13 following allegations of sexual assault [18]. Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) filed his retirement the same week after admitting to an affair with a staffer who later died by suicide [18].

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) is leading efforts to force expulsion votes against Swalwell and Cherfilus-McCormick [19]. Democrats have signaled they would counter by bringing up a vote to expel Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL), who is under Ethics Committee investigation for alleged domestic abuse, stolen valor, and financial misconduct — charges he denies [20]. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) has called on all four members — Swalwell, Gonzales, Cherfilus-McCormick, and Mills — to resign or face expulsion [21].

The tit-for-tat dynamic has raised concerns about whether expulsion is being weaponized as a partisan tool. Some rank-and-file Democrats have warned that a blanket defense of Cherfilus-McCormick could weaken the party's anti-corruption message [13]. But the selective application of expulsion threats — with each party targeting the other's members — suggests the process has become entangled with political calculations that extend beyond the underlying conduct.

What Expulsion Would Mean for FL-20

Florida's 20th Congressional District, which Cherfilus-McCormick represents, covers parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties. It is the most Democratic district in Florida, with a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+22 — making it the 46th most Democratic district nationally [22].

If Cherfilus-McCormick were expelled, the seat would be filled through a special election called by the governor. Under Florida law, the governor has sole authority to set the election date, with no statutory deadline for doing so [23]. The process typically takes about eight weeks once the governor issues an order, with a minimum two-week gap required between the special primary and special general elections [23].

A recent precedent is instructive — and politically loaded. When Matt Gaetz resigned his FL-1 seat in November 2024, Governor Ron DeSantis set the special election for April 1, 2025 [24]. But when the earlier vacancy occurred in what is now FL-20 after Rep. Alcee Hastings died in 2021, DeSantis took considerably longer to schedule the special election [24]. Critics accused DeSantis of deliberately delaying the election to keep a Democratic seat vacant.

Given FL-20's strong Democratic lean, the seat would almost certainly remain in Democratic hands regardless of timing. The more consequential question is how long the district's roughly 800,000 constituents would go without representation during a period of active legislative activity — and whether the governor would face political pressure to expedite or delay the process.

Proportionality and Precedent

The central legal and procedural question is whether the violations found against Cherfilus-McCormick — serious as they are — meet the historical standard for expulsion rather than lesser sanctions like censure or fine.

Every modern-era House expulsion has involved either a criminal conviction (Myers and Traficant) or findings so extensive that they substituted for one (Santos) [10]. Cherfilus-McCormick has been indicted but not convicted. The Ethics Committee has found violations proven by clear and convincing evidence, but the full committee has not yet voted on a recommended sanction. Johnson's call for expulsion preempts that process.

The Congressional Research Service has noted that expulsion is "generally applied to a Member after being sworn into office" and is "substantively and procedurally different from other disciplinary measures" [25]. The historical practice suggests the House has reserved expulsion for the most extreme cases — treason during the Civil War, proven bribery, and comprehensive fraud — while using censure and reprimand for a wider range of misconduct.

The allegations against Cherfilus-McCormick, if fully proven at criminal trial, would fall squarely in the category of conduct that has historically warranted expulsion: theft of government funds and use of those funds to win a congressional seat. The counterargument is procedural rather than substantive — that the House should wait for the Ethics Committee's formal recommendation and, ideally, the outcome of the criminal case before imposing what Johnson himself calls "the political death penalty."

The April 21 sanctions hearing will be the next decisive moment. What the Ethics Committee recommends — and whether Johnson's expulsion push survives contact with the two-thirds supermajority requirement — will determine whether Cherfilus-McCormick becomes the seventh House member expelled in American history, or whether the chamber's tradition of reserving expulsion for post-conviction cases reasserts itself.