House weighs rare expulsions of four members amid scandals, thin majority

The House returned to Washington with a fragile Republican majority and a test that reached beyond scandal: whether a chamber split so narrowly can still police its own members. As lawmakers came back from a two-week recess, pressure built around possible expulsion efforts involving as many as four representatives, a fight shaped as much by arithmetic as by ethics.

The most prominently discussed names were Eric Swalwell of California, Tony Gonzales of Texas, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida and Cory Mills of Florida. The allegations and ethics findings surrounding them have intensified bipartisan calls for action, with some lawmakers saying the misconduct is too serious to ignore. At the same time, the partisan stakes are obvious. Republicans hold only a razor-thin majority, and some GOP members are wary of removing a crucial vote from their own conference.

Any expulsion would take a two-thirds vote in the House, a punishing threshold that makes removal rare even when scandal dominates the headlines. If all 435 members voted, 290 votes would be needed. The chamber has expelled only six members in its 237-year history, and before George Santos was ousted in 2023, the House had gone two decades without expelling anyone. That history has given fresh weight to the current debate, because each case could set off a wider chain reaction rather than stand alone.

The practical effect may be as important as the punishment itself. If the House moved forward with four removals, and if both parties lost members, the partisan balance would not necessarily change. That is one reason the moment has become a test of institutional will: members are weighing whether accountability should override the math of the majority. The Swalwell controversy in particular has raised concern that one case could trigger a cascade of expulsion votes.

The expulsion fight is also landing in a crowded legislative calendar. Lawmakers returned to handle major issues including the war with Iran and funding for the Department of Homeland Security, adding more strain to leaders already managing floor time, internal divisions and a chamber where every seat matters. In that setting, the question is no longer only whether wrongdoing meets the standard for removal. It is whether a thin majority can enforce that standard without exposing how much partisan control now shapes accountability itself.