Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick Faces Expulsion Over Pocketing Overpayment

News

​U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, sitting behind a desk, appearing for a hearing.

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.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL20) has been charged by the federal government with “stealing federal disaster funds, laundering the proceeds, and using the money to support her 2021 congressional campaign.” The House Ethics Committee additionally is investigating her for incorrectly filing financial disclosures, accepting voluntary services for work that should have been paid, and of using her position to direct community project funding requests.

It all started with two extra zeros. Cherfilus-McCormick’s family business Trinity Health Care billed the state of Florida for $50,578.50 but mistakenly received $5,057,850.00. Rather than return the overpayment, she and other family members seem to have used most of that overpayment to fund her election campaign. She is also accused of setting up straw donor systems and filing false 2021 tax returns.


The House Committee on Ethics’s Statement of Alleged Violations runs 59 pages long, but is summarized in this Ethics Committee slide (apologies that the text is not very legible here):

Investigations Timeline

2023: The Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC), a separate group from the House Committee on Ethics, forwarded to the Ethics Committee in September 2023 a report in which the OCC had concluded there was substantial reason to investigate Cherfilus-McCormick for accepting voluntary work that should have been paid and routing funds to a state political action committee, both violations of House rules. In November and December 2023, Ethics announced the existence of an investigation and the creation of an Investigatory Subcommittee.

2024: The Ethics Committee expanded its investigation to include new allegations in a 2024 OCC report. This report alleged that Cherfilus-McCormick may have accepted campaign contributions in exchange for community project funding (aka earmarks), may have misreported campaign contributions and may have tried to direct earmarks to for-profit companies. All are violations of House rules and probably also criminal violations.

2025: The Ethics Committee continued its investigation. In November, the Department of Justice indicted Cherfilus-McCormick for having kept, and used in campaigns, the $5 million dollar overpayment to her family company as well as for setting up straw donors and filing false tax returns.

2026: The Ethics Committee announced the creation of an Adjudicatory Committee to assess the Investigative Subcommittee’s formal Statement of Alleged Violations and in March held an Adjudicatory Hearing (part 1 and part 2). The Adjudicatory Committee voted to sustain all but one of the statements of alleged violations.

On Tuesday, April 21, the Ethics Committee is expected to decide on what kind of discipline Cherfilus-McCormick should face. She might only be censured, but there’s a good chance that the Ethics Committee will recommend expulsion. (Some legislators are also seeking the expulsion of three other legislators. More on that below.)

What Were the Issues Argued at the Hearing?

Cherfilus-McCormick’s attorney, William Barzee, argued that having this hearing at all, but especially in public, would harm Cherfilus-McCormick’s constitutional right to a fair trial (coming up probably this summer) by prejudicing potential jurors and harming her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Were the committee to find that Cherfilus-McCormick had committed the violations described above, the use of “guilty” to describe the outcome would be especially problematic in advance of the trial, he argued.

Committee staff argued that because a) only the House can enforce its own rules and b) they have different standards of proof, c) the sanctions, at most, will mean expulsion from Congress and no loss of personal freedom via incarceration and d) they’ve been investigating since 2023, they will not harm her rights with respect to the criminal case.

While many elements do overlap, just because Chefilus-McCormick is found to have violated House rules on campaign contributions, say, by using that $5 million dollar overpayment, that doesn’t mean a jury would agree given standards of evidence in criminal cases. Further, for allegations that don’t overlap, such as failure to properly disclose finances and a lack of candor, there is no other venue to sanction her.

Barzee also argued that Cherfilus-McCormick, by virtue of how Trinity Health Care was structured, was entitled to whatever profits the company made, even if the profit was a mistake. We found this argument bizarre.

What Happens Next?

Since Friday April 10, things have gotten a bit more complicated. There have been ongoing complaints among House members about the lack of action in Ethics Committee investigations of Rep. Gonzales (R-TX23) and Rep. Mills (R-FL7), both accused of sexual harassment as well as other House rules violations. Then on Friday, several women went public with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Rep. Swalwell (D-CA14).

On Monday April 13, both Reps. Swalwell and Gonzales announced they would be leaving Congress, although neither indicated when and as of this writing, no official resignations have been submitted. Because Swalwell is a Democrat and Gonzales a Republican, their resignations, if simultaneous, will have no effect on the margins needed for Republicans to pass legislation. In the meanwhile, all four are facing potential expulsion.


Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick Faces Expulsion Over Pocketing Overpayment was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.


Read More

Close up of a judge hammering a gavel

Investigations, indictments, dismissals, convictions: what each means and the questions to ask before judging claims of political weaponization of the law.

Chris Collins/Getty Images

Just the Facts: Trump, DOJ and the Legal Process

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


The legal battles involving the Trump administration have become a constant feature of American politics and governance. Supporters often argue that many lawsuits and investigations are politically motivated attempts to block the administration's agenda. Critics contend that certain actions by the administration and the Department of Justice are themselves politically motivated or represent an improper use of government power.

Keep ReadingShow less
gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less