Rep. Lauren Boebert wants Congress to strip former Reps. Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzales of their taxpayer-funded retirement benefits after both men resigned Tuesday amid separate sexual misconduct allegations. The Colorado Republican told CNN's Manu Raju outside the House steps that the two lawmakers should never have been allowed to walk away quietly, and that their pensions should go with them.
As The Hill reported, Boebert argued that resignation let both men dodge the accountability that expulsion would have delivered. She framed the pension question as a test of whether Congress takes misconduct seriously or simply lets disgraced members cash out on the public dime.
The push raises a straightforward question that taxpayers deserve an answer to: Why should someone who leaves office under a cloud of sexual misconduct allegations keep drawing a government check for life?
Speaking to Raju on Tuesday, Boebert laid out her position bluntly. She told CNN:
"I think they should've been expelled and not resigned. And I think that we actually need to look into ways to censure, with other aspects to say you can't have your pension, you can't leave here with all your taxpayer-funded benefits after such shameful acts that cause you to bow out and resign from Congress."
Boebert had already signaled this fight before Tuesday's resignations. After the allegations against Swalwell became public last Friday, she said she would introduce a resolution to censure the California Democrat. On the social platform X, she wrote that Swalwell's pension "should be redirected to his victims."
In a separate post, she cited what she described as witness accounts. "According to 4 witnesses, including a former employee, Rep. Swalwell has been sexually harassing and raping women," Boebert wrote, adding that this "is exactly why Americans hate politicians and I am going to make sure that every member has an opportunity to condemn his conduct."
Swalwell has denied wrongdoing and has not been criminally charged. But the allegations were serious enough to prompt his resignation, and serious enough, Boebert argues, to justify stripping his retirement benefits.
Both Swalwell and Gonzales are 45 years old. Members of Congress become eligible for retirement benefits after five years of federal service. Swalwell served nearly 13 years in the House, making him eligible under either the Federal Employees Retirement System or the Civil Service Retirement System.
A National Taxpayers Union analysis cited by the Washington Examiner found that Swalwell would be eligible for a taxpayer-funded pension of roughly $22,000 per year starting at age 62. That amounts to tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime, paid by the same taxpayers whose trust he is accused of betraying.
Neither man would qualify for the temporary FERS supplement, which requires at least 20 years of federal service. But the core pension remains intact under current law unless a member is convicted of certain felonies committed while in office.
That conviction requirement is the legal obstacle Boebert faces. Fox News reported that current law generally requires a criminal conviction tied to conduct in office before pension benefits can be revoked. Without charges, let alone convictions, the existing statutory framework offers no mechanism to block the payouts.
It was not immediately clear how Boebert would attempt to close that gap. But she told the Washington Examiner directly: "We should pass a law blocking it."
Boebert is now working on legislation that would prevent former lawmakers who resign under misconduct allegations from collecting congressional pensions. Newsmax reported that Boebert is preparing the bill to cover cases like Swalwell's, where a member departs before any criminal process can play out.
In a fuller statement, Boebert described the current arrangement as unacceptable. "Former Congressman Eric Swalwell abused his position of power in Congress to assault and victimize women," she said. "Now as things stand, taxpayers will be sending him tens of thousands of dollars every year for the rest of his life. This is totally unacceptable."
The broader pattern around Swalwell has drawn scrutiny for months. House Democrats stayed largely silent as the misconduct accusations mounted, declining to push for expulsion or any formal disciplinary action before his resignation.
Congressional history suggests the censure route is rare but not unprecedented. Only six representatives have been expelled from the House in U.S. history, and 28 have been censured. Some members who resigned before the chamber could hold an expulsion vote have been retroactively censured, a precedent that could matter if Boebert moves forward.
Boebert described her legislative effort as bipartisan. The Washington Examiner reported that Democratic Reps. Sarah McBride and Johnny Olszewski indicated openness to considering pension revocation in cases involving criminal convictions, admissions, or sufficient findings of misconduct.
Rep. McBride said: "I think that's a worthwhile, holistic solution that should be looked into, not just in this context, but I think in any context where the circumstances are similar."
That measured language stands in contrast to the broader Democratic response. Nancy Pelosi claimed Democrats had "no idea whatsoever" about the Swalwell misconduct allegations, a claim that strains credulity given the number of witnesses Boebert cited and the length of Swalwell's tenure.
The Gonzales case adds a bipartisan dimension that makes the pension question harder for either party to dismiss. Gonzales, a Texas Republican, also resigned Tuesday amid sexual misconduct allegations. Boebert's call to revoke benefits applies to both men equally, removing any suggestion that this is a purely partisan exercise.
Swalwell, for his part, has a long record of demanding accountability from others while resisting it himself. He demanded the benefit of the doubt that he once refused to extend to Justice Brett Kavanaugh during those confirmation hearings, a contradiction that has not gone unnoticed.
The core problem Boebert has identified is real, regardless of whether her specific legislative vehicle succeeds. Under current law, a member of Congress can face the most serious allegations imaginable, resign before any formal proceeding, and walk away with a pension funded by the people he is accused of harming.
The felony-conviction requirement was designed to protect due process. But it also creates a perverse incentive: resign fast enough, and the system cannot touch your benefits. That is the loophole Boebert wants to close.
Swalwell's troubles extend well beyond the misconduct allegations. A separate complaint alleged he used campaign funds to pay an illegal immigrant nanny off the books, adding to a pattern of conduct that raises serious questions about his judgment and ethics throughout his time in office.
The Hill reached out to Boebert's office for additional comment on the specifics of her legislative plan. Several open questions remain: What exact mechanism would the bill use to revoke benefits? Would it apply retroactively? Would it require a formal finding of misconduct, or would resignation under allegations be sufficient?
Those details will matter. But the principle Boebert is pressing is one most taxpayers would recognize immediately. Public service is a privilege, not a pension guarantee, and people who abuse their office should not be rewarded for it on the way out the door.
Congress wrote the rules that protect these pensions. Congress can rewrite them. The only question is whether enough members have the will to do it, or whether they would rather keep the escape hatch open for themselves.
