Shock Move Hits Zohran Mamdani’s Socialists — “Cannot Enter Congress”1
Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., is calling for a change to House rules that would bar newly elected members from taking their seats if they refuse to swear the constitutional oath of office, as scrutiny continues around several Democratic socialist candidates who won New York primaries this year.
Steube announced the proposal during an interview with conservative commentator Benny Johnson and later reiterated it in a post on X.
“Every member of Congress has to swear an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution,” Steube said.
“If she is refusing to do that, she should not be seated. I think we should pass a rule,” he continued.
“This program has given me the idea to file an amendment to the rules.”
Steube later expanded on the proposal online.
“The oath to defend the Constitution isn’t optional,” he wrote. “If you’re elected to Congress but refuse to swear it, you shouldn’t be sworn in!!”
“I’m calling for a House rules change to ensure anyone who refuses the oath is barred from taking their seat.”
His comments were aimed in part at Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist who defeated longtime Rep. Adriano Espaillat in the Democratic primary for New York’s 13th Congressional District and is now the party’s nominee for the heavily Democratic seat.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani endorsed Avila Chevalier during the primary, helping connect her campaign to the broader rise of democratic socialist candidates in New York politics.
Steube has pointed to Avila Chevalier’s past activism and social media record as evidence, in his view, that her political positions are incompatible with the oath required of members of Congress.
Avila Chevalier helped establish an earlier Columbia University student organization called Columbia University Apartheid Divest, or CUAD. A later coalition using the same name became a central organizer of pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia and drew criticism for rhetoric including calls for the “total eradication of Western civilization” and support for militant resistance.
Reports have also highlighted past social media posts attributed to Avila Chevalier, including a remark about wiping her hands on an American flag. She has faced broader scrutiny over deleted posts and statements from earlier in her political activism.
Steube cited that record while questioning whether someone associated with those views could sincerely swear the congressional oath.
“These people are incompatible with our country and cannot uphold their oath of office,” Steube said.
Under Article VI of the Constitution, members of Congress are required to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution before assuming office.
The oath currently administered to members states that they will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
Steube’s proposal would formalize a House rule addressing members who decline to take that oath. He has not publicly released detailed legislative text explaining how the rule would operate beyond an outright refusal to be sworn.
The controversy is significant because criticism of a candidate’s past political statements is not the same as an actual refusal to take the oath. Avila Chevalier would still be required to swear or affirm support for the Constitution if she wins the general election and is seated in the House.
Whether House leadership will consider Steube’s proposed rules change remains unclear. The House adopts its rules at the beginning of each Congress, and changes require approval by the chamber.
The dispute comes as Mamdani has faced a separate setback involving one of his administration’s early housing interventions.
In January, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David S. Jones rejected New York City’s effort to delay the bankruptcy sale of thousands of rent-regulated apartments owned by Pinnacle Group, allowing the auction process to continue.
Pinnacle had entered bankruptcy after mortgage lender Flagstar Bank moved to foreclose on a portfolio of more than 90 buildings backing roughly $560 million in mortgage debt.
The Mamdani administration sought to intervene shortly after taking office, arguing that the city had an interest both as a creditor and as an advocate for tenants living in the affected buildings.
Court filings showed that Pinnacle owed the city about $12.7 million in unpaid housing-related fines and that thousands of building-code violations and tenant complaints remained associated with the portfolio.
The city argued that a sale should not proceed without stronger assurances that a new owner could finance repairs and maintain the properties over the long term.
Jones rejected the request to halt the process, and Summit Properties ultimately won court approval to acquire roughly 5,200 rent-regulated apartments across 93 buildings for about $451 million.
The judge said Summit had shown the financial capacity to support the properties and had developed plans for addressing outstanding code violations.
The city’s intervention nevertheless resulted in commitments from the buyer to make repairs and cure violations on an accelerated timetable, according to city officials.
The Pinnacle dispute and Steube’s proposed House rule involve unrelated legal and political issues, but both have placed figures connected to New York’s growing democratic socialist movement under renewed national scrutiny.
For Avila Chevalier, the next step is the November general election. For Mamdani, the housing fight remains part of a broader effort to influence the future of New York City’s rent-regulated housing stock even when the properties are controlled through federal bankruptcy proceedings.
"🔥 POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE! — THE NEW EPSTEIN FILES TWIST THAT PUTS TRUMP UNDER MASSIVE SCRUTINY!"
A new wave of scrutiny surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files is putting Donald Trump back at the center of one of Washington’s most contentious political battles. Representative Ted Lieu has publicly urged authorities and the media to examine disturbing allegations contained in Epstein-related records, while congressional Democrats continue pressing questions about how the Justice Department handled the documents.
The dispute reaches far beyond a single statement from a lawmaker. It involves allegations of sexual abuse, questions about the completeness of a major document release, and a growing political confrontation over whether the public has received a full accounting of the records connected to Epstein.
For Trump, the renewed attention creates another difficult political moment. For Lieu and other Democrats, the central question is whether the available records have received the scrutiny they warrant — and whether additional disclosures could clarify what investigators knew.
But there is an essential distinction at the heart of the controversy: an allegation appearing in an investigative file is not the same as a finding that the alleged conduct occurred.
Ted Lieu Brings the Epstein Allegations Back Into the Spotlight
Lieu, a California Democrat and vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, drew attention to the allegations during a news conference on February 3, 2026.
He argued that Republicans’ focus on former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton risked diverting attention from references to Trump in the Epstein files. Lieu urged journalists to examine the allegations recorded in the documents and questioned whether the Justice Department was adequately investigating people connected to Epstein.
His remarks were forceful, but their meaning matters. Lieu was describing allegations contained in the records, not announcing that investigators had established the accusations as fact.
The distinction became particularly important as descriptions of his comments spread online. Some posts suggested that the files conclusively showed criminal conduct or that undisclosed records contained direct proof of abuse. Fact-checking reports found that such descriptions went beyond what Lieu actually said.
The documents include information gathered during investigations into Epstein, the convicted sex offender whose connections to wealthy and influential people have remained a source of public concern. Investigative records can contain witness accounts, tips, interview summaries, and information that has not been independently corroborated.
The presence of a person's name in such records does not, by itself, establish criminal conduct. Nor does the existence of an allegation automatically establish its credibility.
Lieu's intervention nevertheless intensified the debate over what the records contain, what the government has disclosed, and whether further investigative steps are warranted.
A Previously Withheld Set of Records Raises New Questions
The controversy took another turn in February when House Oversight Committee Democrats said the Justice Department appeared to have withheld documents concerning a woman who alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her when she was a minor.
According to reporting by ABC News, an index of materials associated with the investigation indicated that FBI agents had interviewed the woman multiple times in 2019. The public release initially appeared to include only one of several interview reports and related notes.
Democratic lawmakers said their review suggested that more than 50 pages of potentially relevant material had not appeared in the public database. They questioned whether the department had properly disclosed records covered by the release requirements.
The Justice Department disputed the Democrats’ characterization. It said responsive documents had been produced unless they fell into categories such as duplicates, privileged material, or records connected to an ongoing federal investigation.
That disagreement raises a substantive question: Were documents missing because of administrative or legal reasons, or did the release fail to include material that should have been made public?
Answering that question requires more than competing statements from politicians. It requires a careful examination of the document index, the records that were released, the records that remain unavailable, and the legal basis for withholding any material.
The department has attributed some problems in the broader release process to the scale and complexity of the records. Democrats have argued that the apparent gaps deserve further investigation.
The dispute has also intensified scrutiny of Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has faced congressional questions about the department’s handling of the Epstein files.
What the Allegation in the Records Actually Says
The allegations at issue are serious. According to ABC News, an FBI presentation summarized a woman's account that Epstein introduced her to Trump and that Trump subsequently assaulted her when she was between approximately 13 and 15 years old.
The account is an allegation, not an established finding of fact.
The public record also contains important limitations. An FBI interview summary documents what a witness told investigators; it does not necessarily establish that investigators independently verified the account. Likewise, the appearance of an allegation in a presentation prepared for prosecutors does not, on its own, demonstrate that prosecutors or investigators concluded it was substantiated.
ABC News reported that an internal FBI email indicated the woman ultimately declined to cooperate. That detail is relevant to understanding the investigative record, but it does not independently prove or disprove her account.
The Justice Department has said that some Epstein-related materials contain untrue or sensational claims submitted to the FBI. The White House has also rejected the allegations against Trump as baseless. Trump has denied wrongdoing.
Those responses do not resolve every question about the records or how they were handled. But they are part of the public record and must be considered alongside the allegations and the available documentation.
A responsible examination of the case must keep three issues separate: what a witness alleged, what investigators documented, and what evidence — if any — independently corroborates the allegation.
Confusing those categories can mislead readers and turn an unresolved claim into an apparent conclusion.
Why the Justice Department’s Handling of the Files Matters
The political conflict is not limited to the allegations involving Trump. It also concerns the government’s obligation to handle Epstein-related records transparently while protecting victims’ privacy and complying with legal restrictions.
The release process has attracted criticism over redactions, missing or delayed documents, and the disclosure of sensitive information. Epstein survivors and lawmakers have raised concerns about whether the process adequately balances public accountability with the need to protect people who experienced abuse.
That balance is difficult. Excessive redaction can prevent the public from understanding how authorities handled a major criminal investigation. Insufficient redaction can expose victims’ identities or release private material that should remain protected.
The Justice Department has said that some material must remain withheld for legal reasons, including protections for victims and restrictions involving ongoing investigations. Critics have questioned whether those explanations fully account for every apparent omission.
Congressional oversight could help establish how the department interpreted its obligations, what internal procedures it used, and whether any documents were improperly excluded. It could also determine whether apparent gaps resulted from administrative errors rather than deliberate concealment.
At this stage, the public dispute over the records should not be treated as proof of a coordinated cover-up. That is a conclusion that would require evidence beyond the existence of missing documents or disagreements over disclosure decisions.
The stakes are nonetheless substantial. The credibility of the release process depends on whether the government can explain its decisions and demonstrate that the rules were applied consistently.
A Political Clash With Consequences Beyond Trump
Lieu’s statements have become part of a wider confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration over the Epstein investigation.
Democrats have accused the Justice Department of failing to disclose all relevant records and have demanded greater transparency. Administration officials have countered that some claims circulating in public are unsubstantiated and that the department must follow legal requirements governing sensitive information.
The disagreement has created a political feedback loop: each new document or allegation generates demands for more disclosure, while each dispute over the release creates additional suspicion about what might remain unavailable.
That dynamic can make it difficult to distinguish legitimate unanswered questions from claims that go beyond the evidence.
For Democrats, continued scrutiny offers an opportunity to demand explanations from the administration and test whether the department complied with its obligations. For Trump and his allies, the challenge is to respond to questions about the records while arguing that unverified allegations should not be treated as proof of misconduct.
The political consequences will depend partly on what additional records show and whether independent evidence supports any of the claims. They will also depend on whether congressional inquiries establish procedural failures in the release process.
An investigation may uncover significant new information. It may also conclude that some allegations cannot be substantiated or that missing documents were withheld for legally permissible reasons. Neither outcome should be assumed in advance.
The Questions That Remain
The Epstein files have become a test of public trust in the institutions responsible for investigating abuse, protecting survivors, and disclosing records of legitimate public interest.
Several questions remain central. Were all responsive documents released under the applicable requirements? If material was withheld, what legal or administrative reasons justified the decision? What did investigators establish independently, and which statements remain uncorroborated allegations? And how can the government provide meaningful transparency without exposing survivors to further harm?
Lieu has pressed for greater scrutiny of allegations involving Trump, while other Democrats have focused on the department’s handling of the documents. Those efforts have renewed pressure on the administration, but public statements and congressional accusations are not substitutes for documented findings.
The next meaningful developments will come from the records themselves, any additional disclosures, and the results of formal oversight or investigative proceedings.
For now, the controversy remains a collision of serious allegations, disputed disclosure decisions, and partisan conflict. The public deserves clear answers about the documents and the process used to release them — without treating an allegation as a proven fact or dismissing legitimate questions before the evidence has been examined.
That is what will ultimately determine whether this latest Epstein files dispute produces meaningful accountability or becomes another chapter in Washington’s ongoing political battle.
