On April 14, 2026, two members of Congress resigned under threat of expulsion. One Democrat, one Republican. Both facing sexual misconduct allegations involving staffers -- allegations they disputed in part. Both were given a deadline to resign or face an expulsion vote with bipartisan support to remove them.
Both resigned in time. And by doing so, both preserved something that expulsion would have cost them: a taxpayer-funded congressional pension.
That is not an accident. It is how the system works. And it has worked this way for both parties for decades.
The expulsion threat was real and bipartisan. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) had a motion to expel Swalwell ready to file. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM) was prepared to lead the effort against Gonzales. House Speaker Mike Johnson said both men made the right decision by resigning. The votes were there.
By resigning before that vote, both men avoided expulsion -- and kept their pensions.
Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 with a minimum of 5 years of service. The amount depends on years served and the average of their three highest-earning years.
How a member leaves Congress -- resignation, retirement, losing an election, or expulsion -- makes no difference to pension eligibility. This was confirmed by the Congressional Research Service in 2013 and has not changed.
The only way a member of Congress loses a pension is criminal conviction for one of 31 specific federal felonies listed in the Hiss Act and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Those felonies include treason, espionage, bribery, perjury, and corruption in office.
Sexual misconduct against staffers is not on the list. Abuse of power is not on the list. Behavior that rises to the level of bipartisan expulsion is not on the list -- unless it also results in a criminal conviction for one of those 31 specific crimes.
These resignations follow a pattern that goes back at least thirty years. Both parties are represented in the roster. In most cases the member resigned before facing expulsion or a full ethics verdict -- and kept their pension.
One exception worth noting: Anthony Weiner (D-NY) resigned in 2011 over a sexting scandal and initially retained pension eligibility. He was later convicted in 2017 of a federal crime -- transferring obscene material to a minor -- which is among the 31 specified felonies. That conviction stripped his pension. His case is the exception that proves the rule: it was not the misconduct that cost him the pension. It was the subsequent criminal conviction for a qualifying offense.
After George Santos was expelled from the House in December 2023 -- the first member expelled since 2002 -- Rep. Zachary Nunn (R-IA) introduced the Congressional Pension Accountability Act. The bill would have stripped pensions from any member expelled from Congress and revoked government contributions to their Thrift Savings Plan accounts.
Santos himself narrowly escaped the pension issue -- he had not served the minimum five years, so he was not vested regardless. But Nunn's bill was designed to close the loophole for future cases where an expelled member did meet the service threshold.
The bill did not pass.
Had it passed -- and had it been extended to cover resignations under threat of expulsion -- the outcome would be different. Swalwell and Gonzales would have faced a direct financial consequence for their conduct beyond losing their seats. As the law stands today, resigning before the vote costs them nothing in pension terms.
"Thankfully, George Santos won't be eligible to receive a pension because he didn't hit the minimum term of service, but this episode exposed a major flaw that needs to be fixed: those who are unfit to serve in Congress are unfit to receive a pension."
-- Rep. Zachary Nunn (R-IA), December 2023, introducing the Congressional Pension Accountability ActPlain Citizen applies the same standard to everyone. The documented roster above includes four Republicans and three Democrats. The pattern is consistent across party lines: when facing expulsion or a full ethics reckoning, members of Congress from both parties have resigned in time to preserve their pensions.
Bob Packwood in 1995 and Eric Swalwell in 2026 -- a Republican and a Democrat, thirty-one years apart -- followed the identical playbook. The Senate Ethics Committee recommended Packwood's expulsion after documenting years of sexual assault. A bipartisan expulsion resolution was ready for Swalwell. Both resigned before the vote. Both kept their pensions.
The system that produced that outcome is the same system today. Congress wrote the rules. Congress has had multiple opportunities to change them. The bill introduced after Santos's expulsion did not pass. The pension structure remains as it was.
Consider what the congressional pension system looks like compared to how accountability works for ordinary Americans in the workplace.
In most American workplaces, an employee who settles a sexual harassment claim -- even without admitting wrongdoing -- faces real consequences. Termination. Loss of severance. Forfeiture of unvested retirement benefits. In many cases, a permanent record that follows them to the next job.
A private sector employee fired for cause can lose pension benefits that have not yet vested. ERISA -- the federal law governing private retirement plans -- allows employers to deny benefits to employees dismissed for misconduct in certain circumstances. Some plans include explicit forfeiture provisions triggered by termination for cause.
Federal employees outside Congress who are removed for misconduct can face pension forfeiture under specific conditions. Members of the military can lose retirement benefits for certain offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Members of Congress face none of these consequences. A settlement against a staffer -- even one paid with taxpayer money, as in the Farenthold and Meehan cases -- triggers nothing. A resignation under threat of expulsion triggers nothing. The pension continues as if the member had simply chosen not to seek re-election.
The gap is not subtle. An assembly line worker, a teacher, a nurse, a truck driver -- any of them could lose retirement benefits for conduct far less serious than what the documented roster above describes. Members of Congress who write the rules that govern everyone else have exempted themselves from the most basic consequence that applies in nearly every other American workplace.
Swalwell and Gonzales settled nothing -- their cases are unresolved. But the structure of the law means that even if they had settled, even if taxpayer money had been used as in prior cases, the pension clock would keep running. The only thing that stops it is a criminal conviction for one of 31 specific crimes. Congress chose that list. Congress can change it. So far, Congress has not.
On April 14, 2026, two members of Congress resigned under threat of bipartisan expulsion for sexual misconduct against staffers. One Democrat. One Republican. By resigning before the vote, both preserved taxpayer-funded pensions -- pensions that only a criminal conviction for one of 31 specific federal felonies can strip away.
This is a documented pattern going back at least to 1995. The Congressional Research Service confirmed it in 2013 and nothing has changed: how a member leaves Congress makes no difference to pension eligibility.
In the private sector, a settlement without admission of wrongdoing can still cost an employee their job and their retirement benefits. In the military, misconduct can cost a service member their pension. For members of Congress, none of that applies. A settlement paid with taxpayer money -- as documented in prior cases -- changes nothing. Resignation under bipartisan expulsion pressure changes nothing.
A bill to begin fixing this was introduced in 2023. It did not pass. Congress has looked at this before. The American worker does not get the same protection Congress has given itself. It is past time to look at it again -- and this time, to finish the job.
The conclusions are yours to make.
Stay Informed. Stay Independent.
No spin. No agenda. Get Plain Citizen articles delivered free to your inbox.
✉ Subscribe FreeFree. No spam. Unsubscribe any time.