motion

WASHINGTON — California Rep. Eric Swalwell resigned his congressional seat on Monday under intense pressure from lawmakers of both parties after several women accused him of sexual misconduct, including a former staffer who alleged rape.

Swalwell, a Dublin Democrat who suspended his campaign for California governor on Sunday, said in a statement that he was stepping down from the House, where he has served since 2013, and planned to continue fighting what he called “serious, false” allegations made against him.

“However, I must take responsibility and ownership of the mistakes I did make,” Swalwell wrote without specifying which mistakes those were.

His resignation came hours after the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against him and as lawmakers from both parties threatened to expel him from the House if he did not leave his post. He said he was aware of the expulsion efforts underway and said that it was “wrong” to expel a member of Congress “without due process, within days of an allegation being made.”

“But it is also wrong for my constituents to have me distracted from my duties. Therefore, I plan to resign my seat in Congress,” he said.

Asked about replacing Swalwell, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said in a statement that it is “reviewing the matter. Once the seat is officially vacant, our office will make an official announcement.”

The allegations, detailed in reports by the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN last week, drew swift bipartisan condemnation, with lawmakers from both parties calling the accusations “disgusting” and demanding that he either resign or be removed from office.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) intended to lead the charge to expel Swalwell. In an interview Monday, Luna said she planned to file a motion as early as Tuesday on the grounds that he violated House rules over an alleged inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate. A House floor vote could have been held as early as Wednesday, she said.

Following Swalwell’s resignation, Luna said the Northern California lawmaker did “the right thing.” But she took issue with him saying that the allegations were not grounds for expulsion, noting that he was under criminal investigation.

In New York, the Manhattan district attorney’s office opened an investigation into sexual assault allegations against Swalwell by a former staffer and issued a statement over the weekend that urged “survivors and anyone with knowledge of these allegations to contact our Special Victims Division.”

After the sexual allegations came to light, Democrats called on Swalwell to resign, but when it comes to expulsion, they said they would not move against Swalwell alone. They were also pushing to expel Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), who last month admitted to a sexual relationship with a staffer who later died by suicide.

Late Monday, Gonzales said he too was stepping down. “When Congress returns tomorrow, I will file my retirement from office,” he wrote on X.

The push to get Swalwell expelled had gained traction even among his friends.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) wrote on X on Monday that Swalwell should be kicked out of Congress, saying he “trusted someone who I believed was a friend, but is now clear that he is not the person I thought I knew.” Gallego said the woman “deserves to be believed, to be supported, and to see justice served.”

Had Swalwell been expelled, it would have been the first such removal in congressional history on the grounds of sexual misconduct, and among the rare instances in the House’s 237-year history in which members ousted one of their own.

Only six members have been expelled from the House. Three were fighting for the Confederacy, two were convicted of bribery and one was the fraudster George Santos, whose sentence was later commuted by President Trump.

Now that Swalwell has resigned, he is still eligible for his pension and for a number of other perks extended to other former members, including the ability to enter the House floor and access to the congressional gym.

Swalwell said Monday that he is working with his staff to “ensure they are able, in my absence, to serve the needs of the good people of the 14th congressional district.”

While many of Swalwell’s staffers have already quit, remaining staffers not involved in constituent services would lose their jobs and receive no severance pay.

Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute, which is focused on congressional reform, argues that the practice is unfair.

“I think the House owes them a duty for what they’ve had to go through,” Schuman said.

Longtime ethics expert Meredith McGehee said that members have been reluctant to expel their colleagues in recent years because of the razor-thin majorities in the House, but that not doing so hurts the credibility of the institution.

“It’s really important at this moment that the House act to expel these men who have been seriously and credibly accused of wrongdoing,” said McGehee, a former executive director of the ethics watchdog Issue One. “To allow either one of them to stay in office and serve out their term would be a farce.”

The Swalwell scandal could still prompt an ever larger surge of expulsion calls. Some lawmakers called for two additional members to be swept into any expulsion vote: Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.), who has been accused of sexual assault, and Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.), who was indicted on charges that she laundered $5 million of federal disaster money and used it to fund a political campaign.

“Reps. Swalwell, Gonzales, Cherfilus-McCormick, and Mills should resign. If they refuse, they should be expelled,” Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) wrote on X on Monday. “Americans deserve better and Congress must hold our members accountable.”

Any expulsion would require a two-thirds majority vote, or 290 of 435 votes if every House member participates. The Senate would not be required to concur with the House vote to make the expulsion effective, but it remains to be seen whether the House could meet the two-thirds threshold.

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez in Sacramento contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is arguing that a judge’s order to halt construction of a $400-million ballroom creates a security risk for President Trump as it asks a federal appeals court to pause the ruling.

In a motion filed Friday, National Park Service lawyers say that the federal judge’s order to suspend construction of the East Wing ballroom is “threatening grave national-security harms to the White House, the President and his family, and the President’s staff.”

“Time is of the essence!” the lawyers write, citing materials that will be installed to make a “heavily fortified” facility. The ballroom construction also includes bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility, according to the filing. The ballroom is part of Trump’s plans to remake public buildings and institutions in Washington during his remaining years in office.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington on Tuesday ordered the temporary pause of the construction project that has included demolishing the East Wing of the White House. He concluded that unless Congress approves the project, the preservationist group suing to stop it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

The White House is owned by the federal government, not the president. Even the website of the National Park Service, which filed the motion, makes clear that “the White House is owned by the American people.”

The judge suspended enforcement of his order for 14 days, acknowledging that the administration would appeal his decision.

Leon’s ruling and the appeal come the same week a key agency tasked with approving construction on federal property in the Washington region gave final approval to the project.

In his ruling, Leon, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, suspended enforcement of his order, recognizing that “halting an ongoing construction project may raise logistical issues.”

Leon also addressed national security in his ruling, saying that he reviewed information that the government privately submitted to him and concluded that halting construction wouldn’t jeopardize national security. He exempted any construction work that is necessary for the safety and security of the White House from the scope of the injunction.

Trump lashed out at the ruling, while noting that it would allow work on underground bunkers and other security measures around the White House grounds to continue — even though those will be paid for by taxpayers. Trump has pledged that he, along with private donors, will cover the costs for the ballroom itself.

But the National Park Service argues in its motion that the president has “complete authority to renovate the White House” and the current state of the grounds, which is an open construction site, make it harder to protect the White House.

“Canvas tents, which are necessary without a ballroom, are significantly more vulnerable to missiles, drones, and other threats than a hardened national security facility,” the motion says.

The Trump administration is asking the appeals court to make a decision on its request by Friday. It also asked that the 14-day suspension of Leon’s order be extended by two weeks so the case can be taken to the Supreme Court.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.