Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, the Washington state Democrat who has built a reputation for bucking her party, declared Friday morning that Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick should resign or face removal from Congress, one day after a House Ethics Committee subcommittee found 25 of 27 ethics charges against the Florida Democrat had been proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Gluesenkamp Perez did not mince words. Writing on X after deliberations that stretched past midnight, she put it plainly, as Breitbart reported:
"You can't crime your way into legitimate power. Since she was found guilty, she should resign or be removed."
Axios congressional reporter Andrew Solender later confirmed on X that Gluesenkamp Perez told him directly she would support expelling Cherfilus-McCormick from the House. That makes her one of the first Democrats to publicly back the most severe sanction Congress can impose on a sitting member.
The ethics case against Cherfilus-McCormick is not a thin political complaint. Committee investigators spent more than two years building it. They reviewed more than 33,000 documents, held roughly a dozen meetings, and issued dozens of subpoenas before the case reached a rare public hearing, the first involving a sitting member since 2010.
At the center of the case sits a $5 million overpayment. A Florida agency mistakenly sent that sum in July 2021 to Trinity Healthcare Services, Cherfilus-McCormick's family company, through a FEMA-funded COVID-19 vaccination contract. The investigative report alleged that money tied to that overpayment then flowed into Cherfilus-McCormick's 2022 special election campaign. National Review reported that federal prosecutors allege she and her brother kept the overpayment rather than returning it.
The New York Post reported that investigators said more than $3.6 million in federal funds paid to Trinity Health Care Solutions ultimately reached Cherfilus-McCormick's campaign. That figure, if accurate, represents a staggering amount of taxpayer money allegedly diverted from disaster relief into a political operation.
Investigators also alleged she later funded her reelection campaign through entities linked to friends and relatives, including consulting groups and a company largely financed by the Haitian government. Prosecutors have separately alleged that more than $100,000 of the improperly obtained money was used to buy a 3-carat yellow diamond ring.
Cherfilus-McCormick has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty in a parallel federal criminal case. The Washington Free Beacon noted she faces up to 53 years in prison if convicted on the federal charges.
During Thursday's closing arguments, Rep. Brad Knott, a North Carolina Republican, dismantled the defense's claim that Cherfilus-McCormick lacked knowledge of how money moved through her campaign and family business. Knott pointed to text messages and called the congresswoman "integrally involved" in the movement of money connected to her campaign.
One text message Knott cited laid bare the mechanics of what investigators described. It read:
"The max is two checks of $2,900. That is why sister had to give money to Nadege for her to make another donation."
That language describes, in plain terms, what campaign finance law calls a straw-donor scheme, routing money through third parties to circumvent contribution limits.
Another exchange Knott cited involved Hector Roos, an individual connected to Cherfilus-McCormick's congressional campaign, who wrote:
"I suggest you move funds into the campaign account sooner rather than waiting towards the end of the month. This is the one chance to post a big number."
Cherfilus-McCormick's alleged response, as quoted by Knott: "I am not planning on using that amount, just leveraging. I think that's a good idea." And then, in a separate message: "Indeed, but no one has to know that."
Knott was blunt about the weight of the evidence. As the ethics trial unfolded over the preceding days, the defense had argued Cherfilus-McCormick was unaware of the financial maneuvering around her. Knott rejected that outright:
"But when you add up all the things that she did not know, it absolutely flies in the face of common sense."
He added: "You and I both know that sometimes evidence speaks for itself." And he told the defense directly: "There was knowledge on her behalf far beyond what you have represented to this committee."
National Review reported that Sydney Bellwoar, a committee lawyer, described "the most egregious example" as Cherfilus-McCormick receiving $2 million directly from Trinity Health into her campaign in July 2021 to forge the appearance of a robust campaign infrastructure.
The bipartisan subcommittee's finding that 25 of 27 charges were proven does not, by itself, remove Cherfilus-McCormick from office. The Washington Examiner reported that the full House Ethics Committee will hold a hearing after the April recess to determine what sanction, if any, to recommend. Options range from censure to a recommendation that the full House vote on expulsion.
Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote, a high bar. But the ethics panel's guilty finding on 25 counts creates enormous pressure. And the precedent is fresh. When Republicans moved to expel Rep. George Santos in 2023, Democrats largely voted in favor. The Free Beacon noted that House Democrats may now face pressure to support removal to avoid the appearance of a double standard.
That pressure has not yet moved Democratic leadership. The Free Beacon reported that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in February he was a "hard no" on voting to expel Cherfilus-McCormick. Whether that position holds after 25 proven violations and a parallel federal indictment remains to be seen.
Gluesenkamp Perez's willingness to break ranks is not new. In November, she led a bipartisan rebuke of Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García of Illinois over what she described as an effort undermining voters' ability to choose their representatives. Her stance on Cherfilus-McCormick follows the same logic: if you got your seat through fraud, you don't get to keep it.
Newsmax reported that the committee said it would recommend a punishment in the coming weeks, a step that could add momentum to Republican efforts to expel the Florida Democrat. The allegations involve roughly $5 million in overpaid disaster relief funds that prosecutors say were routed through businesses and family members to support her 2022 campaign.
The scale of the alleged misconduct is hard to overstate. COVID-19 relief money, taxpayer funds meant to vaccinate Americans during a pandemic, allegedly ended up financing a congressional campaign and a diamond ring. A two-year investigation produced 33,000 documents and dozens of subpoenas. A bipartisan panel found the evidence convincing on all but two counts. A parallel federal criminal case carries a potential sentence of more than half a century.
Cherfilus-McCormick maintains her innocence. She has every right to a defense in both the ethics process and the federal courts. But the question now facing the House is not whether she deserves a defense, it is whether a member found to have committed 25 ethics violations, allegedly funded by stolen FEMA money, should continue casting votes and drawing a salary while that defense plays out.
Gluesenkamp Perez answered that question clearly. The rest of her caucus has not.
When taxpayer dollars meant for disaster relief end up in campaign accounts and jewelry boxes, the voters who paid those taxes deserve something more than silence from the people they sent to Washington.
