Steve Hilton, the Republican front-runner in California's gubernatorial race, says the sexual abuse allegations engulfing Congressman Eric Swalwell are the product of a political party that has operated without meaningful opposition for too long, and that the Democrats who endorsed Swalwell despite warning signs have only themselves to blame.
Hilton made the remarks Wednesday in an interview on NewsNation's "Elizabeth Vargas Reports" as the fallout around Swalwell accelerated. A fifth woman, Lonna Drewes, came forward Tuesday with allegations that Swalwell spiked her drink at a public event in 2018 and sexually assaulted her in a hotel room. Within hours, some of the congressman's most prominent backers, including U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff and powerful labor unions, dropped their endorsements and called for Swalwell to exit the race to replace outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The Los Angeles County district attorney announced that its sex crimes division was investigating Swalwell, adding a law-enforcement dimension to a story that had already upended the Democratic primary.
Hilton's central charge is straightforward: the people who lined up behind Swalwell knew, or should have known, about a pattern of conduct that was widely discussed in political circles. As Hilton told NewsNation:
"The pattern of behavior was an open secret in California, apparently on Capitol Hill as well, and they endorsed him anyway."
That line cuts to the heart of the matter. If the behavior was as widely known as Hilton describes, the endorsements that flowed to Swalwell's gubernatorial campaign were not innocent misjudgments. They were calculated bets that the allegations would never go public, or that the party's institutional weight could contain them if they did. The speed with which those endorsements evaporated once Drewes came forward suggests the backers understood the gravity of the claims all along.
The question of what Democratic leaders knew and when they knew it is not a small one. Swalwell was among the leading Democrats in the race. His candidacy carried the weight of major institutional support. If that support was extended despite credible whispers of misconduct, the party's gatekeepers failed the very women they claim to champion.
Hilton placed the Swalwell episode inside a broader critique of California's political structure. He argued that the state's long stretch of unbroken Democratic governance has bred a culture where accountability is optional and powerful figures are shielded from consequences.
"This to me reflects the kind of arrogance you get after what we have now in California, which is 16 years of one-party rule where Democrats run everything."
It is a familiar pattern in any jurisdiction where one party holds every lever of power, the legislature, the governor's mansion, the regulatory agencies, the major urban district attorney offices. Oversight atrophies. Internal discipline weakens. And the incentive to protect a politically useful colleague outweighs the incentive to hold him accountable. Hilton's framing positions the Swalwell mess not as an isolated scandal but as a symptom of structural rot.
California voters have watched this dynamic play out across multiple fronts: rising homelessness, public-safety breakdowns, budget fights, and now a major sexual-abuse scandal in the middle of a governor's race. The common thread, as Hilton sees it, is a ruling class that answers to no one.
Drewes's allegations date to 2018, seven years before she came forward publicly. She is the fifth woman to accuse Swalwell. The sheer number of accusers, combined with the years of silence, raises an uncomfortable question for every Democrat who stood beside the congressman during his gubernatorial bid: did they ask, or did they choose not to?
Hilton acknowledged that the situation is not entirely simple. He noted that party leaders have faced criticism for not acting sooner, then offered a measured concession before turning the responsibility back on them. As he told NewsNation:
"They've obviously faced a lot of criticism, and not just from you for not saying something sooner or doing something sooner. But what should they have done, given that none of these women were yet making any of these allegations? Look, that's for them to have considered."
That final line, "that's for them to have considered", is the quiet indictment. Hilton is not demanding that party leaders possess clairvoyance. He is saying that when whispers circulate for years, responsible leaders investigate rather than extend endorsements. The failure was not one of knowledge. It was one of will.
The political collapse around Swalwell happened with remarkable speed. Within hours of the latest allegation, Sen. Adam Schiff, one of the most recognizable Democrats in the country and a fellow California politician, pulled his endorsement. Powerful labor unions followed suit. The unified message was clear: Swalwell should leave the race.
The swiftness tells its own story. Endorsements built over weeks or months do not disintegrate in hours unless the endorsers already harbored serious doubts. A broader pattern of donors and allies cutting ties with Swalwell suggests the political class had been holding its breath, hoping the dam would hold.
It did not hold. And now the Los Angeles County district attorney's sex crimes division is investigating a sitting congressman who was, until this week, a top-tier candidate for governor of the nation's most populous state.
The Swalwell implosion reshapes the Democratic primary and hands Hilton, already the Republican front-runner, a potent line of attack. He can now run not just against individual Democratic candidates but against the party's institutional judgment. Every remaining Democrat in the field will have to answer for what the party's leadership knew, tolerated, or ignored.
NewsNation will feature Nexstar's "Debate Night in California: The Race for Governor" on Wednesday, April 22, with special coverage starting at 8 p.m. Eastern / 7 p.m. Central, livestreamed by The Hill. That debate will be the first major test of whether the remaining candidates can separate themselves from the wreckage, or whether Hilton's "arrogance" narrative sticks.
Swalwell's resignation and the special-election mechanics it triggered have added yet another layer of uncertainty to a race already defined by scandal. Meanwhile, reports of additional women prepared to come forward suggest the full scope of the allegations may not yet be known.
For voters tired of being told that one-party rule is good for them, the Swalwell affair is a case study in what happens when no one in the room has the power, or the incentive, to say "no."
