This resolution, introduced by Rep. Greg Steube, proposes expelling Rep.
Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick from the U.S. House under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, based on a federal indictment alleging theft of FEMA disaster funds and related misconduct to advance her 2021 campaign. The bill references additional ethics concerns and an ongoing House Ethics Committee investigation into her campaign finances and related activities.
If adopted, the measure would remove Cherfilus-McCormick from the House and remove her seat from Florida’s 20th District.
The resolution frames these actions as a matter of public trust and governance, arguing that the alleged crimes and ethics issues constitute grounds for removal to protect the integrity of the House and the institutions it serves. It relies on constitutional authority to expel a member and cites the ongoing parallel investigations to underscore ongoing concerns about fitness for office.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill uses the constitutional power to expel a sitting member. Citing a federal indictment and ethics concerns, it declares that Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick should be expelled from the House.
Who It Affects
Directly affects Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick and her seat representing Florida’s 20th District; indirectly affects the House’s operations, ethics oversight, and precedent for removal.
Why It Matters
It signals that serious criminal allegations and ethics concerns can lead to removal, setting a precedent for integrity standards and the limits of membership in Congress.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is a straightforward invocation of Congress’s constitutional power to expel a member. It centers on a federal indictment that alleges Rep.
Cherfilus-McCormick stole FEMA disaster funds and used them to support her campaign, along with related money laundering and campaign-finance allegations. The resolution also points to an Ethics Committee inquiry into the representative’s campaign activities and potential violations of law and rules.
By tying the indictment to a broader ethics review, the measure argues that a sitting member who is accused of criminal conduct and facing serious questions about campaign-finance practices cannot continue to hold office without undermining public trust. The bill concludes by authorizing her expulsion under the Constitution’s express provision for removing members, thereby ending her service in the House if the resolution passes.The document does not create new statutes or funding; it uses established constitutional authority to address alleged misconduct.
It emphasizes standards of conduct and the responsibility of the House to maintain its integrity, while noting that the Ethics Committee investigation and related allegations are already underway.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill is a House resolution introduced by Rep. Greg Steube to expel Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick under Article I, Section 5.
It centers on a DOJ indictment alleging theft of $5,000,000 in FEMA disaster funds and related money laundering to aid a campaign.
The resolution cites ongoing Ethics Committee investigations into campaign finance and ethics concerns surrounding Cherfilus-McCormick.
The indictment alleges theft, wire fraud, money laundering, unlawful campaign contributions, and false tax filings.
If enacted, the measure expels Cherfilus-McCormick from the House under constitutional authority.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expulsion authority under the Constitution
This section frames the constitutional basis for expelling a sitting member of the House. It relies on Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 as the authority to remove a member who is believed to have breached public trust, with the final removal effected by the resolution if adopted.
Indictment and alleged crimes cited
This section summarizes the federal indictment alleging theft of FEMA disaster funds and associated money laundering and campaign-finance violations, tying the alleged conduct to personal and political gain and to the misallocation of federal disaster resources.
Ongoing ethics investigations referenced
This section notes that the House Ethics Committee has opened an Investigative Subcommittee to review related campaign-finance and ethics concerns, including activities surrounding the 2022 election cycles, and to assess compliance with internal rules.
House standards and public trust
This section connects the alleged misconduct to Rule XXIII of the House, asserting that the standard of conduct fell short of the expectation that members reflect creditably on the chamber, reinforcing the rationale for considering removal.
Expulsion remedy
This final section states the outcome: if adopted, Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick would be expelled from the House under the constitutional provision cited, ending her tenure as a Member.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Florida’s 20th District residents and voters who rely on accountable representation and want to see integrity in their representative.
- Federal taxpayers and disaster-relief beneficiaries who expect proper use of disaster funds and avoidance of misappropriation.
- The U.S. House of Representatives as an institution seeking to preserve credibility and public trust.
- Other House members who favor strict ethics enforcement and accountability standards, reinforcing norms against improper conduct.
- House Ethics Committee and its staff, whose oversight role gains clarity through continued inquiry and enforcement.
Who Bears the Cost
- Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick faces removal from office and loss of her seat.
- Constituents of Florida’s 20th District temporarily lose direct representation as the seat becomes vacant or undergoes succession.
- The House as an institution bears administrative and resource costs associated with expulsion proceedings and vacancy management.
- House staff and committees involved in any expulsion proceedings shoulder added workload and coordination.
- The Ethics Committee staff may incur additional responsibilities aligning with the ongoing investigations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Expelling a sitting member based on indictment and ethics inquiries vs. preserving due process and avoiding politically motivated removals; a move that preserves institutional integrity but may preemptively strip a member of office before trial or full adjudication.
The central tension here is the balance between due process for a sitting member and the House’s prerogative to expel for conduct that allegedly betrays public trust. The bill rests on a federal indictment and an Ethics Committee inquiry, raising questions about when the House should act and how much proof is needed before removal.
It also assumes that indictment or ethics concerns alone justify expulsion, which could provoke debates about the thresholds and protections afforded to Members during parallel criminal and internal investigations. The resolution does not spell out interim arrangements if a seat becomes vacant, nor does it detail procedural steps beyond the expulsion itself, leaving practical questions about replacement and continuity unanswered.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.