House Ethics Committee to determine sanction for embattled Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick
U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FLA) appears for a hearing of the House Ethics Committee on Capitol Hill on March 26, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Florida Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick’s fate as a member of the House of Representatives hangs in limbo as a potential expulsion vote looms this week.
The House Ethics Committee is set to hold a rare public hearing Tuesday afternoon to determine what sanction would be appropriate for the panel to recommend to the full House against Cherfilus-McCormick.
Expelling a member of the House is a rare occurrence. A two-thirds majority is required to remove a member.
Only six House members in U.S. history have been expelled from the lower chamber. Former New York Republican Rep. George Santos was the most recent lawmaker expelled from the House in 2023.
Last month, Cherfilus-McCormick was found guilty of 25 House ethics violations, including acceptance of improper campaign contributions and commingling of campaign and personal funds. The congresswoman was indicted in November 2025 by a federal grand jury on charges of stealing $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, which she is accused of laundering to support her successful 2021 congressional campaign.
Cherfilus-McCormick has denied wrongdoing — excusing the allegations as an accounting error. Also, she has insisted she won’t resign.
“For those asking whether I plan to resign, the answer is no. This is not the time to abandon the district, not when they too are fighting for their future,” she said in a statement last week.
The committee may recommend a range of sanctions, including expulsion, censure, reprimand, fine — and even denial or limitation of any right, according to House rules. The House may punish its members and may expel its members by a two-thirds vote, according to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
The sanction recommendation against Cherfilus-McCormick is expected to be announced in writing after the hearing, which is expected to last for approximately two hours pending no interruptions. Afterward, the panel will break into executive session to conclude its deliberations and reach a judgment.
The precise timing of when the committee will release its bipartisan decision is unclear.
Regardless of the panel’s recommendation, Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube said he’ll move to force a vote to try to expel the congresswoman following the sanction hearing. Steube is expected to make the expulsion resolution privileged, which requires Speaker Mike Johnson to hold a vote on the matter within two-legislative days.
The speaker signaled last week that expelling Cherfilus-McCormick over her alleged crimes would be “appropriate.”
Though he initially insisted that Democrats would not help Republicans expel Cherfilus-McCormick, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Monday that Democrats will convene a caucus meeting to determine how they’ll handle the the bipartisan Ethics panel’s recommendations.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, center, and Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025. Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are petitioning the Government Accountability Office to investigate the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education.
In a letter first obtained by ABC News, the two senators call for nonpartisan congressional watchdog to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the department winding down its functions and transferring offices to other agencies.
“Students and families deserve better — we need a full independent investigation into the latest attempts to sabotage our schools,” Warren, D-Mass., wrote in a statement to ABC News.
Led by Warren and Sanders, I-Vt., and signed by Democrats Patty Murray of Washington and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, the letter alleges that the Education Department is illegally dismantling itself through its interagency agreement with the Department of Labor that allowed Labor to administer adult education, family literacy and career and technical education (CTE) programs previously homed in the department.
“We are deeply concerned that the administration’s decisions to implement CTE and adult education grant programs in this manner delayed crucial funding that millions of students and schools rely on,” the senators wrote.
They also said they worry that the decisions may have created “administrative inefficiencies, increased the cost of program administration, and compromised the quality of technical assistance provided to states and grantees.”
GAO is working through its process to determine the next steps in responding to the senators’ request, a spokesperson with the agency confirmed to ABC News.
Education Department spokeswoman Savannah Newhouse argued that the lawmakers’ request prioritizes bureaucrats over students.
“The Trump Administration will not sit idle while students, educators, and states suffer under our broken federal education system which undermines our economy, national security, and civic health,” Newhouse wrote in a statement to ABC News. “Also, as the Senators likely know, interagency agreements are a standard, lawful tool used across government — including by the Biden Administration’s own DOJ and Bureau of Prisons to allow the Department of Labor to administer grants under the First Step Act,” she added.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has also defended the department’s moves. She said in a statement in July that the way the education and workforce programs had been administered was “inefficient and duplicative” and they needed to be streamlined in order to best serve students and families.
The workforce development partnership between the two agencies launched last summer following President Donald Trump’s executive order entitled “Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future.” In November, the Department of Education made an additional announcement that it would transfer some of its offices to other government agencies, including the departments of State, Health and Human Services, and Interior.
A senior department official said the interagency agreements (IAA) marked a “major step forward” in abolishing the agency and fulfilling McMahon’s mission of returning education to the states. The senators’ letter requested that GAO extend its probe into all of the IAAs because they allegedly attempted to transfer “statutory requirements” to other agencies. They’re requesting GAO determine whether the moves jeopardize services for students, weaken federal support to protect the rights of students, children, youth and families, and affect other indicators of program integrity and quality.
The GAO works to provide timely, fact-based, non-partisan information that can be used to improve government, per the agency’s website. The senators’ latest request is a part of Warren’s Save Our Schools campaign that she launched last year to investigate the administration’s attempts to shutter the education department.
Peoria Federation of Teachers union representative Michael Brix worries that the Education and Labor partnerships could roll back CTE progress for his students.
“When we hear of these changes, the Department of Education being dismantled, and then other departments then taking on similar roles — or the same roles — it’s very nervous not knowing what is coming ahead,” he said, adding, “It’s kind of scary.”
Editor’s note: This story’s headline has been updated to reflect that the senators want the GAO to investigate the Department of Education’s dismantling.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) talks to reporters after former President Bill Clinton did not appear for a closed-door deposition in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 13, 2026 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The chairman of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee said the panel will move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against former President Bill Clinton after he failed to appear for a subpoenaed deposition on Tuesday as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The committee had threatened to hold the former president and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress if they did not appear for separate scheduled closed depositions set for Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively.
“I think everyone knows by now, Bill Clinton did not show up. And I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee. This wasn’t something that I just issued as chairman of the committee. This was voted on by the entire committee in a unanimous vote of the House Oversight Committee to subpoena former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” Oversight Chairman James Comer said Tuesday morning.
“We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress,” Comer, a Republican, later added.
A lawyer for the Clintons, David Kendall, has not responded to requests for comment on whether Hillary Clinton will appear on Capitol Hill for her Wednesday subpoenaed deposition.
In a four-page letter posted on social media Tuesday morning, the Clintons publicly called out Comer for threatening to hold them in contempt of Congress.
“Despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment. This is not the way out of America’s ills, and we will forcefully defend ourselves,” the letter states.
The Clintons contend in the letter that Comer’s approach to the committee’s work on the Epstein investigation has “prevented progress in discovering the facts about the government’s role” and that the chairman has “done nothing” to force the Justice Department to comply with its disclosure obligations required by Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed late last year.
“We have tried to give you the little information that we have,” the Clintons wrote. “We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific. If the Government didn’t do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work — to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. There is no evidence that you are doing so.”
For months, Republicans on the committee have been demanding that the Clintons provide testimony to lawmakers, citing the former president’s travels on Epstein’s private aircraft in the early 2000s and the Clinton “family’s past relationship” with Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. The panel initially issued subpoenas for the Clintons on Aug. 5 to appear in October.
Kendall has continued to argue that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony. Kendall has contended that the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.
“There is simply no reasonable justification for compelling a former President and Secretary of State to appear personally, given that their time and roles in government had no connection to the matter at hand,” Kendall wrote in one of the letters sent to the committee in October of last year. He argued that the committee should excuse the Clintons, as the committee had done for five former attorneys general who were each excused after certifying to the committee that they had no relevant knowledge.
Bill Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing and denies having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Former Secretary of State Clinton “has no personal knowledge of Epstein or Maxwell’s criminal activities, never flew on his aircraft, never visited his island, and cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein. She has no personal knowledge of Maxwell’s activities with Epstein,” Kendall wrote. “President Clinton’s contact with Epstein ended two decades ago, and given what came to light much after, he has expressed regret for even that limited association,” an Oct. 6 letter to the committee says.
Comer wrote in a letter to Kendall in October that the committee is “skeptical” that the Clintons have only limited information and stated it was up to the committee, not the Clintons, to make determinations of the value of the information.
“[T]he Committee believes that it should be provided in a deposition setting, where the Committee can best assess its breadth and value,” Comer wrote.
Last month, in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department released several photographs of former President Clinton apparently taken during his international travels with Epstein and Maxwell from 2002 to 2003, although the released photographs contained no information identifying when or where they were taken. Following that disclosure, a spokesperson for the two-term Democratic president argued that the Trump administration released those images to shield the Trump White House “from what comes next, or from what they’ll try to hide forever.”
“So, they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” Clinton’s spokesperson Angel Ureña wrote on X Dec. 22.
Ureña did not respond to an email inquiry from ABC News on Monday.
What is contempt of Congress?
The House of Representatives can hold an individual “in contempt” if that person refuses to testify or comply with a subpoena. The contempt authority is considered an implied power of Congress.
“Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance, to punish the contemnor, and/or to remove the obstruction,” according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.
Any person summoned as a congressional witness who refuses to comply can face a misdemeanor charge that carries a fine of up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison if that person is eventually found guilty.
What would the process look like?
To hold someone in contempt of Congress, the Oversight Committee would first mark up and then vote to advance the contempt resolution. Once the committee approves the resolution, which is expected given the GOP majority, the resolution now could go to a vote in the full House.
A simple majority is needed to clear a contempt resolution on the floor. Notably, it does not require passage in the Senate.
The resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — under the Department of Justice — for possible criminal prosecution.
History of contempt
Congress has held Cabinet officials in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a House subpoena, including Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in 2019 and then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012. The DOJ never prosecuted them even though the House voted to hold them in contempt.
The House held Peter Navarro, a former top trade adviser in the Trump administration, in contempt of Congress in 2022 for defying a subpoena to provide records and testimony to the now-defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro was sentenced to jail time.
Steve Bannon, a Trump ally, was also held in contempt of Congress in 2022 for not complying with the Jan. 6 select committee. Bannon was also sentenced to prison time.
The GOP-led House voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress in 2024 over the DOJ failing to provide audio of then-President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur. The DOJ did not prosecute the case, but the audio was released.
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is drawing backlash from former Federal Reserve and Treasury officials as well as current members of Congress, including those in President Donald Trump’s own party.
A bipartisan group of top economic officials released a blistering statement on Monday calling the probe an “unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine” the central bank’s independence.
“This is how monetary policy is made in emerging markets with weak institutions, with highly negative consequences for inflation and the functioning of their economies more broadly. It has no place in the United States whose greatest strength is the rule of law, which is at the foundation of our economic success,” read the statement from Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, Tim Geithner, Jacob Lew, Hank Paulson and others.
The investigation, announced by Powell in a rare video message on Sunday, is related to Powell’s testimony last June about the multi-year renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings in Washington. But Trump has made Powell a frequent target of his attacks and push to cut interest rates.
White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, who is on Trump’s short list to be the next Federal Reserve chair, said time will tell if the probe is a pretext for firing Powell over interest rates.
“Well, in the fullness of time, we’ll find out whether it looks like a pretext,” Hassett, who denied involvement in the probe, told CNBC in an appearance on Monday. “But right now, we’ve got a building that’s got, like, dramatic cost overruns and, you know, plans for the buildings that look inconsistent with the testimony. But, you know, again, I’m not a Justice Department person. I hope everything turns out OK.”
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, who serves on the Senate Banking Committee, said he will oppose the confirmation of any Trump nominee to the Federal Reserve until legal matters concerning Powell are resolved, which could make it difficult for a nominee to advance out of committee.
“If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump Administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none. It is now the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice that are in question,” Tillis said in a statement on Sunday night.
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, in a post on X on Monday, said Tillis is “right in blocking any Federal Reserve nominees.”
“After speaking with Chair Powell this morning, it’s clear the administration’s investigation is nothing more than an attempt at coercion. If the Department of Justice believes an investigation into Chair Powell is warranted based on project cost overruns — which are not unusual — then Congress needs to investigate the Department of Justice. The stakes are too high to look the other way: if the Federal Reserve loses its independence, the stability of our markets and the broader economy will suffer,” Murkowski posted on X.
House Financial Services Chairman Rep. French Hill, a Republican, said pursuing criminal charges against Powell is “an unnecessary distraction.” Sen. Kevin Cramer, another Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said that he does not believe Powell is a criminal and that he hopes the criminal matter will soon be put to rest.
House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Monday that “if the investigation is warranted, then they’ll have to play that out.” When pressed if he believed the probe is warranted, Johnson said, “I have not reviewed his testimony, so I am not sure, but that’s not really my lane.”
A spokesperson for Attorney General Pam Bondi said Bondi “has instructed her U.S. Attorneys to prioritize investigating any abuse of taxpayer dollars.” Powell said in his statement the probe was fueled by Trump’s monthslong pressure campaign on him to lower interest rates.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, slammed Trump as a “wannabe dictator” over his campaign against Powell.
“Acting like the wannabe dictator he is, Trump is trying to push out the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and complete his corrupt takeover of America’s central bank so that it serves his interests, along with his billionaire friends,” Warren said in a speech about the future of the Democratic Party ahead of 2028 at the National Press Club.
President Trump denied any involvement in the criminal probe during a brief interview with NBC News on Sunday night but continued his criticism of Powell’s leadership.
ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
