Washington’s problems are not hidden. Many of them simply go unaddressed. On Capitol Hill, “open secrets” persist because Congress has chosen to look the other way.
Ask almost any staffer on Capitol Hill, and they can tell you which offices to avoid, which members have a reputation and which situations are quietly tolerated because confronting them would be politically inconvenient. Rumors are not just whispered behind closed doors; they are broadcast to virtually anyone dialed in to the right frequency. Leadership hears them. Colleagues hear them. The press often hears them too. And still nothing happens.
Awareness is not the problem. The blatant absence of accountability is.
When misconduct is tolerated in this way, it sends a message that members of Congress operate under a different standard to the people they represent.
I have rejected that idea, which is why I took action in cases involving Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzales. In both situations, concerns about misconduct had circulated for an extended period, supported by reporting, internal discussions and, in Gonzales’s case, documented behavior that raised serious questions.
I introduced resolutions to expel both members and made clear that I was prepared to force a vote if they refused to resign. My decision was not about party affiliation. It was about establishing a standard. If a member is accused of sexual misconduct, harassment or abuse of power, there must be a mechanism to address it promptly and transparently. Public office cannot serve as insulation from accountability.
Both ultimately stepped down, but the resolution of such situations should not depend on public pressure or the willingness of individual members to file motions for expulsion. It should be the natural outcome of a system that functions as intended, with an Ethics Committee that does its job. The fact that it is not shows that the current system has clearly allowed open secrets to persist, even when the underlying concerns are serious and criminal in nature.
The Ethics Committee process moves too slowly to serve as an effective safeguard. Investigations can extend for years only to produce little or no meaningful outcome. Even when findings are reached, the consequences do not always reflect the severity of the conduct. The bottom line is that a process that delays accountability to that extent does not deter misconduct, it enables it. Serious reform is long overdue.
That failure is not theoretical. It is reflected in how misconduct has been handled for decades. Since 1997, more than $18 million in taxpayer funds have been used to quietly settle claims of sexual harassment and misconduct involving members of Congress. These settlements, handled internally, allow allegations to be resolved without meaningful transparency. This precedent should not be allowed to exist at all – let alone be paid for by the American people.
The case of Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick illustrates a different but equally concerning failure. After a prolonged bipartisan investigation, a House Ethics subcommittee found clear and convincing evidence that she was guilty of the 25 violations brought against her, including serious campaign finance violations and financial misconduct tied to millions in FEMA funds. Those findings followed allegations that she misused relief money and engaged in illegal campaign activity, yet she refuses to step down. That said, the House will determine her fate – finally.
But this took too long. These situations reflect a broader breakdown in how Congress enforces its own standards. Enforcement is uneven, delayed and often influenced by considerations unrelated to the conduct itself. When accountability falters in this way, it is not members who bear the consequences, but the people they represent and the staffers who serve them.
For staffers, the consequences are immediate. Their careers depend on relationships and reputations that can be adversely impacted if they voice their concerns. When misconduct becomes an open secret, staffers choose to keep quiet rather than trust in the protections that would otherwise be presumed in a reliably objective institution. That is not a sustainable or acceptable standard in any workplace, let alone the United States House of Representatives.
Addressing this problem demands a complete overhaul. It should start with the committees meant to uphold the integrity of Congress, a standard they are currently failing to meet. The process for handling allegations must move with urgency and transparency – and leadership must be willing to act based on credible concerns rather than waiting for issues to escalate beyond control.
These goals are not partisan. They are necessary steps to restore trust in this institution.
The American people deserve a government that upholds its standards – and every staffer deserves a workplace where they are protected rather than victimized. Public office is not a shield from accountability – and until that magical thinking changes, trust in Congress will continue to erode. Enough is enough.
Comments