Democrat Faces Ouster From Congress Over Federal Charges, Ethics Findings
The House Ethics Committee has found that Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick violated campaign finance laws and other regulations by receiving more than $5 million in federal relief funds and directing a significant portion of that money toward political activities.
An eight-member subcommittee voted early Friday that Cherfilus-McCormick was guilty on 25 of 27 counts related to the case, following a rare public proceeding that lasted more than six hours the previous evening, the New York Post reported on Friday.
“Shortly after the House returns from the April recess, the full Committee will hold a hearing to determine what, if any, sanction would be appropriate for the Committee to recommend,” Ethics Chairman Michael Guest (R-Miss.) and Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.
The subcommittee’s findings could lead to a recommendation that the full House censure or potentially expel Cherfilus-McCormick from Congress. The panel, composed of four Democrats and four Republicans, did not release a detailed vote breakdown. However, members from both parties questioned Cherfilus-McCormick’s defense during the hearing.
Her attorney, William Barzee, sought to delay the proceedings, citing an upcoming federal trial in which she is expected to face charges related to many of the same allegations.
In November 2025, federal prosecutors indicted Cherfilus-McCormick on 15 counts tied to allegations that she misused $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to support her congressional campaign, The Post noted.
Prosecutors allege that some of the funds were used for personal expenses, including the purchase of a 3.14-carat yellow diamond ring. If convicted on all counts, the 47-year-old could face up to 53 years in prison.
During Thursday’s hearing Barzee raised concerns that any findings by the Ethics Committee could influence the potential jury pool ahead of the federal trial. “She’s absolutely innocent. She’s looking forward to being in criminal court in order to prove her innocence, which I’m confident she’s going to be able to do,” he told the subcommittee members, claiming further that any determination in the House “will result in a loss of her constitutional rights.”
One of the counts not supported by a majority of the subcommittee involved allegations of money laundering intended to conceal the source of funds from a Florida-based corporation to Cherfilus-McCormick’s 2022 congressional campaign.
Another money laundering count was upheld, involving millions of dollars in federal funds paid to a for-profit health care company owned by members of the congresswoman’s family. According to House ethics findings, the company was involved in efforts tied to COVID-19 vaccination registration in Florida.
Between 2020 and 2021, Cherfilus-McCormick’s reported $86,000 salary from Trinity Health Care Solutions remained unchanged, even as the company received more than $6 million in government funding related to vaccination efforts, noted the outlet.
A House ethics report released in January found that at least $5.7 million of that funding was directed to a consulting firm that Cherfilus-McCormick wholly owned between March 2021 and October 2022, when the firm was voluntarily dissolved, The Post reported.
Last summer, the committee found that far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez broke House ethics rules by accepting more than $3,700 in gifts for her appearance at the 2021 Met Gala — including the now-infamous “Tax The Rich” dress — but paid less than $1,000 for the items.
The found that the New York Democrat failed to follow House rules on gifts and improperly gave her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, a free ticket to the exclusive $35,000-per-head event, The New York Post reported at the time. But the panel stopped short of issuing any formal sanctions.
According to the committee, the fair-market value of the rented Brother Vellies dress, shoes, jewelry, handbag, and hairpiece totaled $3,724.04. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign delayed payments for months and eventually paid just $990.76 — most of it from her own pocket.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
💥 PRESS DEBUT DISASTER!
Katie Zacharia’s Awkward First White House Press Briefing Draws National Attention
Katie Zacharia’s first appearance behind the White House podium quickly became a major talking point after several uncomfortable moments overshadowed her debut as President Donald Trump’s new press secretary.
The October 13 briefing lasted approximately 14 minutes, with Zacharia answering questions from only three news outlets before ending the session. Her short appearance immediately attracted widespread media attention.
Zacharia had recently been selected to replace former press secretary Karoline Leavitt, stepping into a highly visible role responsible for communicating the administration’s positions to journalists and the American public.
From the opening minutes, observers noticed her reliance on prepared notes. She delivered a lengthy account of Trump’s accomplishments, frequently looking down at the script instead of maintaining eye contact with reporters.
Her delivery also attracted criticism, with commentators describing her voice as hesitant and her presentation as unusually stiff. Others questioned whether the administration had given its newest spokesperson enough preparation time.
Much of the briefing focused on praising Trump’s economic agenda, energy policies, rally attendance, and political achievements. The extended list of talking points left relatively little time for substantive exchanges with journalists.
One particularly awkward moment occurred when Zacharia discussed the challenge of balancing her demanding position with family life. She explained that spending evenings away from her four children was unacceptable to her.
She then accidentally referred to her husband as “my president” before immediately correcting herself with “my husband.” Recognizing the slip, she added a brief joke, creating the briefing’s most widely discussed moment.
The verbal mix-up spread rapidly through news coverage and social media, becoming a defining image of her first appearance. Critics treated it as evidence of nervousness, while others viewed it as an ordinary human mistake.
Her response to a question about U.S. intelligence sharing with Ukraine also drew attention. When asked whether Washington had stopped sharing intelligence with Kyiv, Zacharia replied that she would have to get back to the reporter.
The exchange was brief, but it highlighted the difficulty of responding to sensitive foreign policy questions without immediately having the necessary information. Reporters continued seeking answers as the briefing moved forward.
Another significant announcement concerned Kimberly Guilfoyle, the U.S. ambassador to Greece. Zacharia told reporters that the administration had asked Guilfoyle to resign, unexpectedly introducing a personnel development into the short briefing.
The announcement generated additional headlines and demonstrated that, despite the awkward delivery, Zacharia’s first appearance included consequential political news. Her handling of the announcement, however, also attracted scrutiny from commentators.
Questions about her readiness soon emerged among political observers and some administration allies. The Wall Street Journal described the debut as rocky, reporting that her nervous presentation prompted questions about the decision to put her before cameras so quickly.
The brief question-and-answer session was another unusual feature. After taking questions from Breitbart News, Fox News, and the Daily Mail, Zacharia announced that reporters could ask Trump questions directly as he prepared to leave.
Her decision to end the briefing after such limited questioning became another focus of criticism. Regular White House briefings often involve extended exchanges, making the short session particularly noticeable to journalists and political commentators.
Despite the criticism, Trump publicly defended his new press secretary. Asked about her performance, the president said he thought she had done very well, offering a clear show of support following the difficult debut.
The White House also presented the briefing positively, describing Zacharia’s performance as commanding. That assessment contrasted with critical media coverage, illustrating how differently supporters and detractors interpreted the same appearance.
Zacharia’s debut has therefore become an early test of her ability to manage a demanding communications role. Future briefings will offer a clearer indication of whether she can develop greater confidence and handle sustained questioning.
For now, the accidental “my president” remark remains the most memorable moment from her first appearance. Whether the incident becomes a brief viral embarrassment or a lasting political talking point will depend on what follows.
