Rep. Max Miller's legal team has acknowledged that the Ohio congressman made false claims, in a notarized statement and under questioning at a court hearing, about a witness in a domestic violence protection-order case he brought against his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, the daughter of Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio).
The admission, first disclosed in an attorney email and now the subject of a sanctions motion, strikes at the core of Miller's credibility in a case he initiated. And it raises a blunt question: if a sitting member of Congress will fabricate testimony in a family court proceeding, what else is he willing to misrepresent?
The New York Post reported that Miller, 37, submitted a notarized statement on Feb. 27 claiming his girlfriend, identified only as "J.A.," was inside his home during a Feb. 1 custody exchange, the same exchange in which Moreno alleged he grabbed her by the arm and shoved her against a wall.
Miller's notarized statement was emphatic. He wrote that J.A. "makes it a practice to remain out of sight at my home during custody exchanges" because of Moreno's "unpredictable, irrational, unhinged, and confrontational behavior." He claimed J.A. had "provided statements to DCFS [Department of Children and Family Services] and a private investigator confirming that she was present at my home on February 1 during the custody exchange" and that "she did not hear any commotion."
That same day, Feb. 27, Miller appeared at a court hearing. When asked whether footage showed that his "girlfriend was present immediately preceding the custody exchange," he answered: "Yes."
A judge relied on this testimony and issued a protection order for Miller against Moreno. But the judge drew a line: the court found no evidence "to issue an order to protect the minor child at this time." The couple's daughter is two years old.
Nearly two weeks after the hearing, Miller's own attorneys contacted Moreno's legal team by email and quietly reversed the story. The email stated that "we learned that [the girlfriend] was in fact not likely present at Max's home during the time of the child exchange." Miller's lawyers added that they "still, however, feel the video-recorded exchange demonstrates no altercation between Max and Emily."
That is a remarkable sequence. A congressman submitted a notarized statement. He affirmed its contents under questioning at a hearing. A judge acted on it. And then his own lawyers walked it back in a private email.
Moreno's attorney, Andrew Zashin, was not inclined to let the matter rest. On Monday, Zashin demanded that Miller's legal team either drop or amend the protection-order request. Miller's side declined. On Wednesday, Zashin filed a motion demanding that the court sanction Miller's lawyers and award Moreno attorney fees.
The broader custody fight between Miller and Moreno has been bitter and public, with disputes over their toddler generating headlines that neither side can welcome. Miller brought the domestic violence case against Moreno in what the Post described as "a bid to block her from seeing their 2-year-old daughter while separate custody litigation plays out."
Zashin told the Post that Miller's strategy is transparent.
"Max Miller is trying to weaponize the law to avoid having his parenting rights reduced or terminated. He believes the best defense is a good offense. Max Miller will fail."
Zashin added that "the congressman's civil domestic violence claims are meritless and only designed to use as leverage against his ex-wife in their contested custody case."
Miller's attorney, Adam Brown, maintained that the surveillance footage from the Feb. 1 exchange still supports Miller's position on the underlying allegation. Brown told the Post that the videos "are from immediately after the congressman allegedly abused Ms. Moreno. She is a liar."
Brown described the footage in detail:
"You can see from this video that Ms. Moreno was under no distress whatsoever; she was in an uplifted mood, telling their child to 'say bye' and that the congressman is nothing but a loving father saying 'I love you' to both his daughter and his ex-wife on their way out of the door."
The Post noted that it had reviewed some of the footage cited by Miller and his lawyers. Miller himself had previously claimed Moreno was "in a good mood and showing no signs of having been the victim of any domestic violence."
Whatever the footage shows about Moreno's demeanor, it does not address the central problem: Miller told a court, under oath-equivalent conditions, that a witness was present who apparently was not. His own attorneys confirmed as much. The video argument is a pivot away from the fabrication, not an answer to it.
Miller, for his part, offered a brief comment to the Post.
"This is truly exhausting. I just want what's best for my daughter. Please stop giving my previously diagnosed bipolar ex-wife so much attention. You all need to move on."
That response does not address the fabricated testimony. It deflects to Moreno's mental health, a tactic that may play in certain circles but does nothing to explain why a sitting congressman submitted a false notarized statement and then confirmed it in court.
Max Miller was elected to the House in 2022. Before that, he served in multiple roles during the first Trump administration, including as associate director of the Presidential Personnel Office and as a special assistant to the president. He and Emily Moreno married at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey in 2022 and split in 2024. Miller agreed to pay $2,500 in monthly child support.
The political class in Washington has seen no shortage of personal scandals among its members. But fabricating testimony in a family court proceeding, and having your own legal team confirm it, is a particular kind of failure. It is not a policy disagreement. It is not a political miscalculation. It is dishonesty in a sworn legal proceeding, directed at a court that was deciding questions about a child's welfare.
Conservatives rightly demand accountability from public officials. That standard does not bend based on party affiliation. When House Republicans face internal pressure over matters of principle, it is because voters expect their representatives to hold a higher line, not a lower one.
The facts here are not in dispute between the two sides on the key point. Miller said his girlfriend was there. His lawyers later said she was not. The only question is what a court will do about it.
Several open questions remain. What specific court is handling the protection-order and custody proceedings? What sanctions, beyond attorney fees, did Moreno's side request? And will the judge who issued the protection order revisit that decision now that the testimony supporting it has been contradicted by the petitioner's own counsel?
The broader landscape of Republican infighting and instability in the House makes episodes like this more damaging, not less. Every member who generates a credibility crisis weakens the caucus at a moment when it can least afford it.
Miller's domestic violence case against Moreno may or may not survive the sanctions motion. But his credibility in this proceeding is already gone, and his own lawyers are the ones who confirmed it.
Public officials who submit false statements to courts, and then affirm those statements under questioning, have forfeited the benefit of the doubt. That is not a partisan observation. It is a baseline expectation of honest government, and it applies to everyone who swears an oath of office.
If conservatives believe in law and order, they have to mean it when the person breaking faith with a court wears their jersey.
