Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., announced she will file a motion to expel Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., from Congress after multiple women accused the California Democrat of sexual misconduct and assault. Luna made the announcement on "Saturday in America," saying she plans to bring a disciplinary motion to the House floor next week.
Swalwell, who is also running for governor of California, denied the allegations in a video posted Friday. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, meanwhile, confirmed it is investigating the claims, and urged additional survivors to come forward.
The allegations first surfaced when the San Francisco Chronicle broke the story of a former staffer who accused Swalwell of sexual assault while she was intoxicated. Three additional women have since spoken to CNN with their own allegations of misconduct. That makes four accusers in total, a fact that has turned what might have been a single disputed account into a rapidly expanding crisis for the six-term congressman.
Luna did not mince words about her intentions. As Fox News Digital reported, the Florida congresswoman framed her push as a matter of institutional accountability, not partisan gamesmanship.
She told the program she had called on the alleged victims to come to her office, saying they "deserve a platform." Then she issued a direct warning to Democrats who might rally around Swalwell:
"If Democrats want to protect this type of garbage, I wouldn't recommend it, but they're going to be put on the board for that."
Luna went further, casting the situation as part of a broader pattern of misconduct she sees in Congress. Her frustration was plain.
"I hate having to be kind of the hall monitor of Congress, if you will, but it's gotten really bad. I'm not going to serve with these sexual deviants. That's not what Congress is all about. And I think that we need to focus on the business of the American people, and it doesn't include this stuff."
Expelling a sitting member of Congress is extraordinarily rare and requires a two-thirds vote of the House. The specific procedural rule Luna plans to invoke has not been disclosed. But the filing of the motion itself will force a public reckoning, and put every member on the record.
Swalwell responded Friday with a video statement in which he categorically rejected the accusations. His language left no room for ambiguity:
"A lot has been said about me today through anonymous allegations, and I thought it was important that you see and hear from me directly. These allegations of sexual assault are flat-out false. They are absolutely false. They did not happen. They have never happened. And I will fight them with everything that I have."
Fox News Digital reached out to both Swalwell's congressional office and his gubernatorial campaign for comment on Luna's remarks. No response was noted in the reporting.
The denial is firm. But firm denials are easy. What matters now is whether the facts hold up, and whether the Manhattan District Attorney's investigation produces anything actionable. Swalwell's political future may depend less on what he says and more on what prosecutors find.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office confirmed it is investigating the allegations, a significant escalation that moves the matter beyond the realm of political accusation and into potential criminal territory. A spokesperson for the office urged anyone with information to reach out.
"We urge survivors and anyone with knowledge of these allegations to contact our Special Victims Division at 212-335-9373. Our specially trained prosecutors, investigators, and counselors are well-equipped to help you in a trauma-informed, survivor-centered manner."
The specific conduct under investigation has not been publicly detailed. But the office's decision to name its Special Victims Division and actively solicit additional witnesses signals that prosecutors are treating this seriously, not as a political sideshow.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who would ordinarily be expected to stay above a primary fight in his own party, issued a statement Saturday that offered Swalwell no cover. Newsom said the allegations "from multiple sources are deeply troubling and must be taken seriously." That language, "must be taken seriously", is the kind of careful phrasing that keeps the door open for a later call to withdraw from the governor's race.
Swalwell has already faced calls to drop out of the California gubernatorial contest. Newsom's statement, while stopping short of demanding that, adds significant pressure. When the sitting governor of your own state publicly describes allegations against you as "deeply troubling," the political math gets grim fast.
The broader dynamics inside the Democratic caucus will matter here. How many members are willing to defend Swalwell publicly? How many will stay silent and hope the story passes? Luna's motion will force that question into the open.
This is not the first time Swalwell's conduct has drawn serious scrutiny on Capitol Hill. In March 2021, then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy filed a motion seeking Swalwell's removal from the House Intelligence Committee after reports surfaced about his past contacts with suspected Chinese operative Christine Fang. As the Washington Times reported, Republicans cited Fang's fundraising help for Swalwell and her involvement in placing at least one intern in his congressional office.
McCarthy said at the time that Swalwell "has no place serving on the committee in charge of America's top secrets." Democrats closed ranks. Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi reappointed Swalwell to the Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Adam Schiff defended him as a "trusted and valued member" who had cooperated with the FBI.
More recently, FBI Director Kash Patel has moved to declassify FBI files related to Swalwell's ties to the suspected Chinese intelligence operative, a step that could shed new light on exactly how close that relationship was and what the Bureau knew about it.
The Christine Fang episode ended without criminal charges, and Democrats treated the matter as closed. But it established a pattern: serious questions about Swalwell's judgment, followed by party-line protection, followed by the issue quietly fading from view. Luna's expulsion motion is designed to prevent that cycle from repeating.
Expulsion from Congress is the most severe sanction the House can impose. It has been used only a handful of times in American history, most famously against members who joined the Confederacy. The two-thirds threshold makes success unlikely in a closely divided chamber, particularly when Republicans hold a razor-thin majority and can ill afford distractions from their legislative agenda.
But Luna appears to understand that the motion's value extends beyond the vote count. By forcing every member to go on the record, she creates a political marker. Democrats who vote to protect Swalwell will own that vote. And if the Manhattan DA's investigation produces charges down the road, that vote will look even worse in hindsight.
The broader question is whether Washington's institutions are capable of holding their own members accountable when the allegations are ugly enough. Congress has a long and inglorious history of looking the other way, on both sides of the aisle. The recent release of Clinton deposition videos in the Epstein investigation is a reminder of how long accountability can take when powerful people are involved.
Luna's motion may not succeed. But it asks the right question at the right time: Should a sitting congressman facing sexual assault allegations from four women, with an active criminal investigation underway, continue to serve as if nothing happened?
Much remains unknown. The exact nature of the allegations from the three women who spoke to CNN has not been publicly detailed. The specific conduct under investigation by the Manhattan DA's Office is unclear. The date and location of the alleged assault described by the former staffer have not been reported. And the procedural basis for Luna's planned disciplinary motion has not been specified.
Swalwell's denial is on the record. So is the DA's investigation. So is Newsom's statement. What happens next will depend on facts that have not yet emerged, and on whether the institutions involved treat this with the seriousness it demands or let it slide into the familiar Washington pattern of delay and distraction.
Four accusers. A criminal investigation. A governor who won't vouch for him. And a congressman who says none of it happened. Somewhere in that gap between denial and investigation lies the truth, and the voters of California, at minimum, deserve to hear it before they're asked to make Eric Swalwell their governor.