Attorneys for Rep. Max Miller have acknowledged that the Ohio congressman fabricated testimony about a key witness in court proceedings where he sought a protection order against his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, the daughter of Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio). The admission, first reported by the New York Post, has triggered a sanctions motion from Moreno's legal team and cast serious doubt on Miller's credibility in an already bitter custody fight.
The concession is not a matter of interpretation. Miller's own legal team sent an email to opposing counsel stating they had "learned that [the girlfriend] was in fact not likely present at Max's home during the time of the child exchange." That directly contradicts a notarized statement Miller signed and testimony he gave under oath, both on the same day.
For conservatives who believe in the rule of law, accountability, and honest dealing in court, this is not a story to wave away because Miller has an "R" next to his name. Fabricating testimony in a domestic violence proceeding is a serious matter, no matter who does it.
The sequence of events is damning in its specificity. On February 1, Moreno alleged that Miller grabbed her by the arm and shoved her against a wall during a custody exchange at his home. Her legal team has claimed this was the second time Miller assaulted her during such an exchange.
Miller denied the allegation. In February, his attorneys submitted a statement from the 37-year-old congressman in support of obtaining a protection order against Moreno. On February 27, Miller signed a notarized statement making a very particular claim: that his girlfriend, identified only as "J.A.," was inside his home during the entire custody exchange.
The statement was emphatic. Miller declared that J.A. "makes it a practice to remain out of sight at my home during custody exchanges" due to what he called Moreno's "unpredictable, irrational, unhinged, and confrontational behavior." He further stated that J.A. had "provided statements to DCFS [Department of Children and Family Services] and a private investigator confirming that she was present at my home on February 1 during the custody exchange" and that "she did not hear any commotion."
That same day, February 27, Miller appeared at a court hearing. When asked whether footage showed that his "girlfriend was present immediately preceding the custody exchange," Miller answered: "Yes."
A judge agreed to issue a protection order for Miller against Moreno, though the court found no evidence "to issue an order to protect the minor child at this time."
Then, nearly two weeks later, Miller's attorneys reversed course. In an email to Moreno's lawyers, they acknowledged that J.A. was "in fact not likely present" at Miller's home during the exchange. The email tried to soften the blow, adding: "We still, however, feel the video-recorded exchange demonstrates no altercation between Max and Emily."
That hedge does not erase the problem. Miller made specific, notarized claims about a witness who, by his own lawyers' later admission, was not there. He then affirmed those claims under oath. The entire foundation of his corroboration, the girlfriend who supposedly heard nothing and saw Moreno acting normally, was fabricated.
Moreno's attorney, Andrew Zashin, moved swiftly. On Monday, he demanded that Miller's legal team drop or amend the request for a protection order against Emily Moreno. When that apparently did not resolve the matter, Zashin filed a motion on Wednesday demanding that the court sanction Miller's lawyers and award Moreno attorney fees.
Zashin did not mince words in his public comments. He told the Post:
"Max Miller is trying to weaponize the law to avoid having his parenting rights reduced or terminated. He believes the best defense is a good offense. Max Miller will fail."
Zashin also characterized the broader legal strategy in blunt terms:
"The congressman's civil domestic violence claims are meritless and only designed to use as leverage against his ex-wife in their contested custody case."
The accusation is that Miller, facing allegations of domestic violence himself, filed a counter-claim against his ex-wife to gain tactical advantage in their custody dispute over their 2-year-old daughter. If Zashin's characterization is accurate, the fabricated witness testimony was part of that tactical play. The sanctions motion now asks the court to hold Miller's legal team accountable for presenting false evidence.
Congressional misconduct, whether personal or professional, has been a recurring source of tension inside the Republican caucus. The GOP has had to confront similar situations with other members facing allegations that test the party's stated commitment to accountability.
Miller's attorney, Adam Brown, has pushed back aggressively on the underlying abuse allegations, even as the witness fabrication stands uncontested. Brown told the Post that the surveillance videos in question were "from immediately after the congressman allegedly abused Ms. Moreno." He called Moreno "a liar."
Brown pointed to Ring doorbell footage as evidence that Moreno showed no signs of distress:
"You can see from this video that Ms. Moreno was under no distress whatsoever; she was in an uplifted mood, telling their child to 'say bye' and that the congressman is nothing but a loving father saying 'I love you' to both his daughter and his ex-wife on their way out of the door."
The Post reported that it reviewed some of the footage cited by Miller and his lawyers. Moreno could be heard saying "bye" on the Ring video. But the footage argument, whatever its merits, does not address the central problem: Miller told a court, under oath and in a notarized statement, that a specific witness was present and could corroborate his account. His own lawyers later said that witness was not there.
The distinction matters. You can argue about whether video shows distress. You cannot argue about whether you fabricated a witness. Miller's legal team has already conceded the point.
Democrats, of course, have their own long history of looking the other way when their members face misconduct allegations. The silence from House Democrats on cases involving their own colleagues has been well documented. But that double standard does not excuse dishonesty in court from anyone, least of all a sitting member of Congress.
Max Miller married Emily Moreno in 2022 at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey. He was elected to the House that same year. Before entering Congress, Miller served in multiple roles during the first Trump administration, including associate director of the Presidential Personnel Office and special assistant to the president.
The couple split in 2024. Miller has agreed to pay $2,500 in monthly child support. The custody dispute has been contentious, with Moreno's legal team alleging a pattern of physical abuse during exchanges and Miller's side characterizing Moreno as unstable and dishonest.
When the Post reached Miller for comment, he responded: "This is truly exhausting. I just want what's best for my daughter. Please stop giving my previously diagnosed bipolar ex-wife so much attention. You all need to move on."
That response does not address the fabricated testimony. It redirects attention to Moreno's mental health, a tactic that may play in the court of public opinion but carries no weight in an actual courtroom where his own lawyers have already admitted the witness claim was false.
The broader pattern of internal Republican tensions in the House makes cases like this more damaging, not less. Every member who creates a credibility problem weakens the caucus at a time when the GOP majority is razor-thin and public trust in institutions is already low.
Several questions remain open. The court has not yet ruled on Zashin's sanctions motion. It is unclear what consequences, if any, Miller will face for the fabricated testimony, both in the domestic case and potentially from the House itself. The specific court handling the matter has not been publicly identified in available reporting.
It is also unclear how Miller's attorneys say they "learned" that J.A. was not present. Did the girlfriend come forward? Did new evidence surface? The email to Moreno's lawyers offers no explanation for how a notarized, sworn claim turned out to be false barely two weeks after it was made.
Questions of judicial accountability and courtroom integrity cut across party lines. When a sitting congressman submits fabricated evidence to a court, the system's response matters, not just for the parties involved, but for public confidence in the legal process itself.
The protection order against Moreno remains in place. No order was issued to protect the couple's minor child. The custody battle continues.
Conservatives rightly demand honesty from public officials and integrity in our courts. Those standards don't come with a party exemption. If Max Miller lied under oath, and his own lawyers say the claim was false, then the court should act accordingly, and his colleagues should expect better.
