FBI agents seized former Rep. Eric Swalwell's phone and laptop under a federal statute that criminalizes officials who use government authority to strip citizens of their constitutional rights, a legal escalation that could carry far steeper penalties than the sexual misconduct allegations alone.
Agents executed the search warrant Saturday night in San Francisco, arriving at 8:25 p.m. and walking away with a white Apple iPhone, its charger, and an Apple MacBook Pro, federal court records obtained by the New York Post show. The warrant return lists the statute under investigation as Title 18, Section 242, the federal law that makes it a crime for a public official to willfully use government authority to deprive someone of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or federal law.
That statute, not a sexual-assault charge, sits at the center of the warrant. And the distinction matters. A basic conviction under Section 242 carries up to one year in prison. If bodily injury results, the ceiling rises to ten years. In cases involving aggravated sexual abuse, the law allows a life sentence.
Royal Oakes, a legal analyst for KNBC-TV in Los Angeles, said the statute's presence in the warrant suggests federal investigators believe Swalwell may have done more than commit personal misconduct. Oakes called the development "really bad news for Swalwell."
"The feds appear to be going after something more extensive than asking whether Swalwell sexually assaulted women. They may be asking if he willfully deprived somebody of a federal constitutional right."
Oakes added that the investigation "could result in a much more serious criminal charge against him."
Seth Zuckerman, a former New York City prosecutor who founded the Zuckerman Legal Group and specializes in white-collar criminal defense, offered a similar reading. The legal code cited in Swalwell's warrant, Zuckerman said, "often involves law enforcement abusing their powers."
Section 242 applies even when an official exceeds lawful authority, as long as the person was acting, or claiming to act, in an official capacity. That language opens the door to a theory that Swalwell used his position as a sitting congressman to intimidate or silence accusers. Swalwell and his campaign reportedly sought to prevent women from coming forward with allegations during his run for California governor.
The FBI warrant is not an isolated inquiry. Swalwell faces at least four separate investigations: a Department of Justice probe, a Manhattan District Attorney investigation, a Los Angeles investigation, and a California state ethics probe. The state ethics matter was reported as early as June 2026.
Swalwell suspended his gubernatorial campaign in mid-April and resigned from Congress shortly after. Neither he nor his attorney, Sara Azari, responded to requests for comment on the warrant.
Zuckerman noted that the device seizure itself, while dramatic, is now standard practice for the bureau.
"The FBI executing a search warrant for electronic devices is a fairly common investigative step that they take in almost all of their cases these days. Cell phones, tablets and laptops contain a treasure trove of data that law enforcement uses for a potential prosecution."
Common or not, the choice of statute is anything but routine. Federal prosecutors do not cite Section 242 casually. The law exists to hold accountable public officials who weaponize their office against the people they serve. Applying it to a former congressman who sat on the House Intelligence Committee signals that investigators believe the misconduct, whatever its precise nature, may have been inseparable from the power of the office itself.
The San Francisco Standard first reported the warrant details. Court records confirm what was taken and which statute was cited. But critical questions remain wide open. No official FBI or DOJ statement has accompanied the warrant. The specific constitutional rights allegedly violated have not been named publicly. The identities of the women involved, and the precise nature of each allegation as stated in official filings, remain undisclosed in available court records.
It is also unclear whether the DOJ probe and the FBI warrant stem from the same investigation or represent separate lines of inquiry. The Manhattan DA and Los Angeles investigations add further legal exposure, but their current status has not been publicly updated.
Swalwell spent years positioning himself as a champion of accountability in government. He sat on the committee charged with overseeing the nation's intelligence apparatus. He ran for president. He ran for governor. Now he sits at the center of a federal probe built on a statute designed to punish officials who turn their authority against the citizens they swore to protect.
When the law you championed in public becomes the law aimed at you in private, the silence speaks for itself.
