A bipartisan House Ethics subcommittee found Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick guilty on 25 of 27 ethics charges after a rare public hearing that stretched past midnight, moving the indicted Florida Democrat one step closer to possible expulsion from Congress. The panel's Friday morning announcement capped a proceeding that Fox News reported was the first public ethics hearing since 2010.
The eight-member adjudicatory subcommittee, split evenly between four Democrats and four Republicans, approved a motion for summary judgment, finding that nearly every allegation in the statement of alleged violations had been proven. Committee leaders said the panel found Counts 1 through 15 and 17 through 26 sustained after deliberations that ran well past midnight Thursday.
The charges center on allegations that Cherfilus-McCormick, 47, laundered millions of dollars in FEMA disaster relief funds into her campaign account and used the money for personal expenses. She faces a separate federal criminal indictment on related charges and could spend up to 53 years in prison if convicted at a trial expected this summer.
The underlying allegations paint a picture of public funds diverted for private political ambition. Federal prosecutors say Cherfilus-McCormick stole more than $5 million in FEMA funds that were improperly paid to her family's healthcare company, Trinity Healthcare Services, through a Covid vaccination contract. National Review reported that investigators alleged the money was funneled through various accounts and outside organizations to support her 2022 special election campaign.
A Miami grand jury indicted Cherfilus-McCormick on Nov. 18, 2025, according to the Department of Justice. She has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges. The ethics investigation, however, preceded that indictment by more than two years, a timeline that underscores how long these allegations have been building.
Ethics investigators concluded that approximately $3.6 million in federal funds paid to Trinity Health Care Solutions ultimately reached Cherfilus-McCormick's campaign, the New York Post reported. The allegations include false financial disclosures, improper campaign contributions, and seeking what investigators described as "special favors."
Cherfilus-McCormick first won election to Congress in 2021. She has maintained her innocence throughout. In a statement after the ruling, she said:
"I look forward to proving my innocence."
That confidence will face its first major test this summer in federal court, and possibly sooner on the House floor.
Thursday's hearing lasted more than six hours before the subcommittee retired for overnight deliberations. The proceeding was notable not just for its rarity but for the sharp exchanges between panel members and Cherfilus-McCormick's attorney, William Barzee, who replaced a string of predecessors, the congresswoman has cycled through four different attorneys during the investigation.
Barzee claimed the proceedings violated his client's due process rights. He argued that an undated chart constituted a "profit-sharing agreement" and that because Cherfilus-McCormick is of Haitian descent, it was "not atypical" to have a "handshake agreement" rather than a formal legal document.
Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, was unconvinced. The former business transaction lawyer told Barzee plainly:
"I did a lot of business transaction law for a number of years before I came to Congress. I drafted a lot of profit-sharing agreements. Never saw one that was just a chart that was unsigned."
Rep. Michael Guest, R-Miss., who helmed the subcommittee, pushed back even harder on the due process claims. He told Barzee the committee had spent two years trying to obtain documents from Cherfilus-McCormick, requesting them, then subpoenaing them, only to be stonewalled.
"For you to sit here and make the claim that we, the committee, is trying to trample upon the rights of your client. I take offense to that. For two years we've tried to get documents from your client. Not only have we requested documents, but we have subpoenaed those documents. Those documents were not provided for two years."
Guest added that he was "personally offended" by the accusation, saying he knew "the work that this committee goes to protect all members and to make sure that we go above and beyond." That a Republican chairman felt compelled to defend the committee's fairness, after two years of obstruction from the subject, tells you something about the nature of the defense strategy.
Cherfilus-McCormick's team had also sought to delay the proceedings until June, a request the panel denied in a closed-door session before the public hearing began. Given that she has a federal criminal trial approaching this summer, the timing of that delay request was conspicuous.
One detail worth pausing on: this was not a party-line outcome. Four Democrats joined four Republicans in sustaining 25 of the 27 charges. Rep. Mark Desaulnier, D-Calif., set the tone at the hearing's outset with a statement that left no room for partisan spin:
"The allegations before us are extremely serious. They not only concern an individual member's conduct, they also implicate the public's confidence in the House's integrity as an institution."
Even rank-and-file Democrats have broken from the usual instinct to circle the wagons. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., posted bluntly on social media: "You can't crime your way into legitimate power." She added that Cherfilus-McCormick "should resign or be removed," as the Washington Free Beacon reported.
That kind of candor from a member of the accused's own party is rare. It also raises an uncomfortable question about House Democratic leadership, which has largely stood by Cherfilus-McCormick so far. At what point does standing by a colleague become standing in the way of accountability?
Cherfilus-McCormick's pattern of leaning on past party endorsements even as federal charges mounted has drawn scrutiny of its own, and the silence from top Democrats only deepens the impression that institutional loyalty is trumping institutional integrity.
The full House Ethics Committee will convene after the Easter recess to determine what punishment to recommend. The options range from censure to expulsion. Breitbart noted that the subcommittee found the 25 charges proven by clear and convincing evidence, a high standard that strengthens whatever recommendation emerges.
Under House rules, expulsion requires a two-thirds vote of all members. That is a high bar, historically reserved for the most egregious cases. But 25 sustained ethics charges and a parallel federal indictment for stealing $5 million in disaster relief funds would seem to qualify.
Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., has vowed to move forward with his own resolution to expel Cherfilus-McCormick regardless of the committee's recommendation. Whether that resolution gains traction may depend on how many Democrats are willing to follow Gluesenkamp Perez's lead rather than leadership's example.
Meanwhile, the federal criminal case looms. Newsmax reported that the ethics violations stem from the same underlying conduct at issue in the criminal indictment, millions tied to a $5 million Florida disaster-relief overpayment routed into her campaign. A conviction could carry up to 53 years in prison.
Cherfilus-McCormick's continued political activity amid these charges has baffled observers on both sides of the aisle. She has not resigned. She has not stepped back from her duties. She has simply insisted on her innocence while burning through attorneys and resisting document requests.
The facts established by this bipartisan panel are damning on their own terms. A sitting member of Congress allegedly took $5 million in FEMA funds meant for disaster relief, routed the money through family accounts and outside organizations, and used it to win a seat in the United States House of Representatives. She then spent two years refusing to comply with subpoenas from the very body charged with policing congressional conduct.
Her defense attorney's best argument was an unsigned chart and an appeal to cultural norms around handshake deals, offered to explain the informal handling of millions of dollars in taxpayer money. A former business lawyer on the panel had never seen anything like it. Neither, one suspects, have the taxpayers who funded those FEMA payments.
The ethics process worked here, slowly but methodically. The question now is whether the House itself will finish the job, or whether political calculations will let a member found guilty on 25 counts keep her seat while awaiting a criminal trial on the same conduct.
Voters sent their representatives to Congress to govern, not to launder disaster relief money into campaign war chests. If 25 bipartisan guilty findings and a federal indictment aren't enough to remove someone, it's fair to ask what would be.
