Manhattan DA Investigates Swalwell; House Republican Introduces Expulsion Motion

Within 48 hours, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) went from frontrunner in the California governor's race to the subject of a Manhattan criminal investigation and a congressional expulsion effort. The twin developments — a district attorney's probe and a privileged House resolution — have thrust unresolved questions about due process, political weaponization, and the limits of congressional discipline into the center of American politics.

The Allegations: Four Women, Two Years of Alleged Misconduct

On April 10, 2026, the San Francisco Chronicle published a report in which a former Swalwell staffer alleged that the congressman sexually assaulted her on two occasions when she was too intoxicated to consent [1]. CNN followed the same day with a broader investigation detailing accounts from four women total, including the former staffer [2].

The former staffer told CNN she began interning for Swalwell in 2019 at age 20. She said the congressman began pursuing her romantically after she was hired as a full-time district office employee at 21 [2]. She described two alleged assaults: the first in 2019, when she said she woke up naked with Swalwell in a hotel room after a night of heavy drinking while still working in his office; the second in April 2024, after she had left his employ, when she said she "was pushing him off of me, saying no" after waking to find him having sex with her in his New York City hotel room [2]. She said the second incident left her "bruised and bleeding" [2].

Three additional women described other forms of alleged misconduct. One woman said Swalwell kissed her and touched her leg without consent at a bar before she ended up "extremely drunk" in his hotel room with little memory of what followed [2]. Two others, including social media creator Ally Sammarco, said the congressman sent them unsolicited explicit photos or videos [2]. Swalwell also allegedly used Snapchat to send images of his genitals to the former staffer and to request nude photos from her [1].

Swalwell's Response: Categorical Denial and Acknowledgment of Infidelity

Swalwell has denied all allegations of sexual assault in stark terms. In a video posted to social media on April 11, he stated: "These allegations of sexual assault are flat false. They are absolutely false. They did not happen. They have never happened, and I will fight them with everything that I have" [3].

He also appeared to acknowledge extramarital conduct, apologizing to his wife for "mistakes in judgment" — language interpreted as an admission of consensual infidelity — while insisting those personal failings were distinct from the criminal allegations [4]. Swalwell framed the timing of the reports as suspicious, stating: "These allegations are false and come on the eve of an election against the front-runner for governor" [5]. He pledged to "defend myself with the facts and where necessary bring legal action," citing his two decades of public service and background as a prosecutor [5].

No public evidence has emerged corroborating the specific assault allegations beyond the women's own accounts. No physical evidence, contemporaneous police reports, or witness testimony has been disclosed by investigators or the motion's sponsor as of this writing. The absence of corroborating evidence does not disprove the allegations; it reflects the early stage of the investigation.

The Manhattan DA Investigation: Early Stage, Narrow Jurisdiction

On April 11, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office confirmed it had opened an investigation into the sexual assault allegations [6]. The office released a statement urging "survivors and anyone with knowledge of these allegations to contact our Special Victims Division at 212-335-9373," describing its approach as "trauma-informed" and "survivor-centered" [6].

Manhattan's jurisdiction arises because at least one of the alleged assaults — the April 2024 incident — reportedly occurred in a New York City hotel room within New York County [6]. The DA's office has not specified whether the investigation is a preliminary inquiry, a grand jury proceeding, or an active criminal probe. No charges have been filed, and no arrests have been made.

The jurisdictional question is significant. Earlier alleged incidents took place in California, where Swalwell's district office is located. Those would fall under California state prosecutors if pursued criminally. The Manhattan DA has authority only over conduct alleged to have occurred within its jurisdiction. Federal prosecution would require a federal crime — and while sexual assault of a congressional employee could theoretically implicate federal workplace statutes, the former staffer had left Swalwell's employ before the 2024 incident she described.

The Expulsion Motion: Luna's Push and the Two-Thirds Threshold

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) announced on April 11 that she would file a privileged resolution to expel Swalwell from the House [7]. Luna told Fox News it was "unacceptable" for Swalwell to remain in Congress while facing the allegations and criticized Democrats for not calling on him to resign [8].

Luna framed the effort as a bipartisan accountability measure, noting she would also support an expulsion vote against Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), who faces a separate House Ethics Committee investigation into sexual misconduct with staffers [7]. Gonzales admitted to an affair with a staffer who later died by suicide and faces additional allegations of sending sexually explicit texts to a campaign aide [9]. He has dropped his reelection bid [9].

Expulsion requires a two-thirds supermajority of those present and voting — a threshold that has been met only six times in the House's 237-year history [10].

Source: U.S. House of Representatives Archives

Data as of Apr 12, 2026CSV

In the modern era, only three members have been expelled. Rep. Michael Myers (D-Pa.) was expelled in 1980 by a 376-30 vote after he was caught on video accepting a $50,000 bribe during the FBI's Abscam sting [10]. Rep. James Traficant (D-Ohio) was expelled in 2002 following federal convictions for bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion [10]. Most recently, Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) was expelled in December 2023 by a 311-114 vote after the House Ethics Committee released a damning report — though Santos had not yet been convicted at trial [11].

The Santos case shifted the historical precedent. Before 2023, every modern expulsion followed a criminal conviction. Santos became the first member expelled without one, though he had been indicted on 23 federal charges and the Ethics Committee had conducted an extensive investigation [11]. Speaker Mike Johnson expressed "reservations" about the precedent at the time [11].

Historical Precedent and Constitutional Authority

The Constitution grants the House broad power to expel members for "disorderly Behaviour" by a two-thirds vote, with no textual limitation on the type of conduct that qualifies [12]. The Supreme Court endorsed this expansive reading in the 1897 Chapman case, affirming the 1797 Senate expulsion of William Blount for actions taken before he assumed office [12].

However, the House has historically exercised restraint. A Congressional Research Service report notes that the chamber has "never expelled any Member for conduct that took place before his or her House service" and has generally required either a criminal conviction or a completed Ethics Committee investigation before proceeding [12]. When voters knew of misconduct at the time of election, the House has sometimes declined to expel on the theory that doing so would override the electorate's judgment [12].

The Swalwell case tests these boundaries. The alleged conduct spans both his time in office (2019) and a period when the accuser was no longer his employee (2024), and no Ethics Committee process or criminal proceeding has concluded. Constitutional scholars note that while the House has the legal authority to expel for virtually any reason, the political and institutional norms against doing so without completed due process remain strong [12].

The speech-or-debate clause of Article I, Section 6 protects members from being questioned in court about legislative acts, but it does not shield them from criminal investigation or prosecution for non-legislative conduct such as the alleged assaults [12]. Nor does it prevent the House itself from taking disciplinary action.

The Political Context: A Long History of Partisan Friction

Swalwell is no stranger to Republican targeting. In 2020, Axios reported that a suspected Chinese intelligence operative, Christine Fang, had cultivated relationships with several California politicians, including Swalwell [13]. Swalwell cut ties with Fang in 2015 after being briefed by the FBI, and the House Ethics Committee closed its two-year investigation in 2023 without finding wrongdoing [14]. Nevertheless, then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy cited the episode to justify removing Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee when Republicans took the majority in 2023 [14].

Luna herself has been a vocal Swalwell critic. The timing of the expulsion motion — filed within a day of the initial media reports and before any law enforcement finding — has prompted questions about whether the effort represents genuine accountability or political opportunism. Luna addressed this by including Gonzales in her push, arguing that misconduct should be punished regardless of party [7].

Democrats responded with a retaliatory posture, preparing their own expulsion vote against Gonzales [9]. The parallel motions have created an unusual dynamic in which both parties are simultaneously attempting to expel a member of the opposing party over sexual misconduct allegations — a scenario without precedent in congressional history.

Political Fallout: Swalwell's Gubernatorial Campaign in Freefall

The allegations have devastated Swalwell's campaign for California governor. Within hours of the Chronicle report, the exodus of support became comprehensive [5]:

• U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff and Sen. Alex Padilla called for Swalwell to exit the race [15].
• Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Swalwell directly to end his bid [15].
• House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries called on him to drop out [15].
• Swalwell lost all 21 endorsements from Democratic colleagues in Congress [16].
• The California Teachers Association rescinded its endorsement [5].
• The Service Employees International Union California suspended ad buys [5].
• ActBlue, the Democratic fundraising platform, halted his campaign page [5].
• His campaign co-chair, Rep. Jimmy Gomez, resigned the position [5].

Nearly every major Democratic gubernatorial candidate — including Tom Steyer, Katie Porter, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Betty Yee — called on him to withdraw [5]. Yee called the allegations "sickening" [5]. As of April 12, Swalwell has not dropped out.

Due Process and the Danger of Expulsion as Political Weapon

If the Manhattan DA investigation results in no charges — or if Swalwell is acquitted at trial — the question of recourse becomes acute. The courts have consistently held that congressional discipline is a political question beyond judicial review. In Rangel v. Boehner, a federal court rejected a censured member's claim that the House had violated his due process rights, holding the matter nonjusticiable [12].

This means a member expelled on unproven allegations would have no formal legal remedy. The only recourse would be political: running again for the seat and seeking vindication from voters. The reputational damage, however, would be difficult to reverse.

The broader institutional concern is whether expulsion motions filed before any adjudicative process — no Ethics Committee finding, no indictment, no trial — could become a routine partisan tactic. The Santos precedent already lowered the bar from conviction to Ethics Committee findings. Moving it further to media reports and unproven allegations would represent a significant escalation.

Members of both parties have acknowledged the risk. During the Santos debate, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) warned that expelling a member without a conviction would put the House in "uncharted waters" and set a "very dangerous precedent" [11]. Supporters countered that the House should hold members to "a higher standard" than criminal courts [11].

What Happens Next

Several tracks are now running simultaneously. The Manhattan DA's Special Victims Division will conduct its investigation, which could result in charges, a declination, or a referral. Luna's privileged resolution could force a floor vote as early as the week of April 13, though House leadership may seek to delay or refer it to the Ethics Committee [7]. Swalwell's gubernatorial campaign faces an existential test, with the June primary approaching and his institutional support collapsed.

The outcome will set precedent for how Congress handles allegations against sitting members in an era of hyperpartisanship — and whether the extraordinary power of expulsion can be exercised responsibly when the normal processes of criminal justice and ethics review have barely begun.