Should Congress be able to expel members found guilty of ethics violations, or should resignation remain a sufficient consequence?

Background

The U.S. Constitution grants each chamber of Congress the power to discipline its own members, including expulsion with a two-thirds vote under Article I, Section 5. According to the U.S. House of Representatives' historical records, only six House members have been expelled in the nation's 250-year history — three for supporting the Confederacy, two for criminal corruption convictions, and one, George Santos, following federal indictment and ethics violations. The issue has gained renewed urgency in 2026 as the House considers potential expulsion proceedings against multiple members from both parties. According to U.S. News and World Report, the House could add as many as four more expulsions in the coming weeks, which would be historically unprecedented. Recent resignations by members facing ethics probes — including Representatives Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzales — have also reignited debate about whether resignation should be treated as an adequate consequence or whether Congress should pursue formal expulsion even when a member offers to leave.

Supporters of a stronger expulsion power argue that allowing members to simply resign lets them avoid a formal public reckoning and preserves benefits such as congressional pensions. As Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has argued, no member of Congress is entitled to hold their seat, and the public deserves representatives they can trust. Some lawmakers, including Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna, have contended that the current ethics process moves too slowly and effectively enables misconduct rather than deterring it. Bipartisan legislation has even been introduced to strip pensions from members found guilty of serious offenses. On the other side, skeptics worry that making expulsion easier could weaponize the process for partisan purposes, turning ethics charges into political tools. They note the two-thirds vote requirement exists precisely to prevent bare majorities from ousting political opponents, and that voters — not colleagues — should be the ultimate judges of a representative's fitness to serve.

What is at stake is the integrity of Congress itself. According to CNN, some members have expressed frustration that resignations allow colleagues to evade accountability, while the House Ethics Committee chair has proposed reforms including expanding investigation authority even after a member leaves office. The Campaign Legal Center has emphasized that without meaningful enforcement, ethics rules fail to prevent corruption or protect public trust. At a time when congressional approval ratings remain historically low, the outcome of this debate could shape whether Congress adopts a more assertive self-policing standard or continues to rely on resignation and voter judgment as its primary accountability mechanisms. Every American who sends a representative to Washington has a stake in how — and whether — the institution holds its own members to account.