Top Democrat Forced Out — Pelosi Rocked by Sudden Resignation
Rep. Jimmy Gomez, the California Democrat who founded the Congressional Dads Caucus and has chaired it since its creation in 2023, has told colleagues that he does not intend to seek another term leading the group as a House Ethics Committee investigation into sexual-misconduct allegations intensifies and his reelection campaign enters its final stretch.
The development puts unusual pressure on a lawmaker whose public profile has been closely tied to family policy and fatherhood. It also comes at a politically sensitive moment: Gomez is seeking a sixth full term representing California's 34th Congressional District and will face fellow Democrat Angela Gonzales-Torres in the Nov. 3 general election after both advanced from California's top-two primary.
The Washington Examiner first reported on Aug. 27 that Gomez had informed members of the Dads Caucus, including in a group message and at least one private conversation, that he would step aside from the chairmanship in the next Congress. The timing is important because the available accounts do not establish that the ethics investigation forced the decision.
One source with direct knowledge told the Examiner that Gomez had discussed leaving the chairmanship before public reporting in April that he had been seen kissing a congressional staff member from another office in 2023. A second source said Gomez had told at least one caucus member of his plans months earlier, although that conversation occurred after the April report. Taken together, the accounts indicate that Gomez was considering a leadership transition before the House Ethics Committee publicly announced its investigation, but they do not resolve exactly when or why he made the decision.
That distinction matters because some descriptions of the episode have portrayed Gomez as being forced out of the caucus. The evidence currently available supports a narrower conclusion: he has said he will not seek another term as chairman, several members have expressed support for a leadership change, and the controversy has clearly created pressure inside the organization, but there has been no public caucus vote removing him and no finding by the Ethics Committee that he violated House rules.
The bipartisan House Ethics Committee announced on Aug. 17 that it was reviewing allegations that Gomez may have engaged in sexual misconduct in violation of the House Code of Official Conduct or other applicable standards. The committee said its inquiry includes an allegation of inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer under a House rule prohibiting unwelcome sexual advances or conduct toward congressional employees.
The committee also emphasized a standard caution that is especially important in a case involving unresolved allegations: the existence of an investigation does not itself indicate that a violation occurred. The panel has not released findings, identified the alleged conduct in detail or announced any recommendation for discipline.
Gomez has acknowledged what he called personal mistakes outside his marriage but has denied violating the law or congressional ethics rules. In a statement after the investigation became public, he said his conduct was consensual and that he was prepared to cooperate fully with the Ethics Committee. He has said he will not discuss the matter further while the inquiry is pending out of respect for his family and the process.
That defense has been directly disputed by attorneys representing an unnamed woman who spoke with House Ethics investigators. The lawyers, Lisa Banks and Sarah Nesbitt, said their client described sexual harassment and assault by Gomez and rejected his characterization that the conduct involving their client was consensual. CBS News reported the attorneys' statement while noting that it had not independently verified the woman's claims.
The public controversy began months before the Ethics Committee's formal announcement. In April, the New York Post reported that Gomez, who is married and has a young son, had been seen in 2023 kissing a younger staff member who worked for another congressional office. Gomez later acknowledged an extramarital relationship while maintaining that it was consensual.
The later allegation presented to the Ethics Committee substantially raised the stakes. A consensual extramarital affair is a personal and political problem but is not automatically a violation of House rules. An allegation of unwelcome or nonconsensual sexual contact involving a congressional employee presents a different question because House rules specifically regulate sexual misconduct and workplace power relationships.
The committee's investigation will therefore have to separate multiple strands of conduct that have sometimes been blended together in political commentary: the admitted extramarital behavior, the reported 2023 encounter with a staff member from another office, and the separate allegation of sexual assault described by attorneys for an unnamed woman. At this stage, the committee has not said whether those reports concern the same person or different people.
The inquiry has begun to reverberate through the Congressional Dads Caucus, an organization Gomez created after he drew national attention by bringing his infant son, Hodge, onto the House floor during the prolonged speaker election in January 2023. The image of a member of Congress caring for a baby while participating in House business helped launch a broader discussion about fathers, caregiving and the double standards working parents often face.
Gomez and a group of Democratic lawmakers formally established the caucus later that month. Its stated purpose is to encourage fathers in Congress to advocate for policies that support working families, including national paid family and medical leave, affordable child care and an expanded Child Tax Credit. The group has grown to roughly 50 members across the House and Senate and includes senior Democrats as well as newer lawmakers.
Because Gomez's leadership of the organization has been so closely connected to its identity, the allegations have created an institutional problem for the caucus beyond the immediate questions surrounding his personal conduct. A group that presents itself as an advocate for families and responsible fatherhood now has to decide how to handle an unresolved investigation involving its founder and chairman.
Rep. Johnny Olszewski of Maryland, who joined the caucus in 2025, is among the members who support a transition in leadership. His office told the Washington Examiner that a transition is expected at the caucus's next meeting, which is not anticipated until after the November election. Another caucus member, speaking anonymously to the outlet, also said Gomez should step aside as chairman.
The internal pressure became more visible when Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts left the caucus. His office confirmed the departure after the sexual-assault allegation became public. Auchincloss was the first reported member to withdraw from the group over the controversy, although his departure did not amount to a broader collapse of the caucus, which continues to list dozens of members and to promote its family-policy agenda.
Outside the Dads Caucus, Democratic leaders have also called for a swift investigation. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar described the allegations as serious and disturbing and encouraged the Ethics Committee to conduct a thorough review.
Leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus went further on procedure. Chair Teresa Leger Fernandez and vice chairs Emilia Sykes and Hillary Scholten said allegations of workplace sexual harassment must be taken seriously and, if substantiated, should bring clear consequences. They urged the Ethics Committee to release the status of its inquiry before the traditional 60-day pre-election period during which the panel generally limits public disclosures that could influence campaigns.
That request highlights the collision between ethics enforcement and electoral timing. Gomez's case became public in mid-August, less than three months before Election Day. If the committee follows its customary restraint close to an election, voters in the 34th District could be asked to choose between Gomez and Gonzales-Torres without knowing whether investigators have reached any preliminary conclusions.
Gomez's opponent is not the 'far-left socialist' described in some partisan accounts. Gonzales-Torres is a progressive Democrat backed by Justice Democrats, an organization that supports left-wing primary challengers and policies such as Medicare for All. Her campaign biography describes her as a community advocate and public servant with experience in affordable housing, higher education and neighborhood governance. Calling her a progressive challenger is supported by the record; labeling her a socialist would require evidence of how she identifies herself or an organizational affiliation that has not been established in the reporting reviewed for this article.
The race itself is unusual because both finalists are Democrats. California's nonpartisan top-two system sends the two highest vote-getters from the June primary to the general election regardless of party. Official Los Angeles County results show Gomez finished first with 45.99 percent of the vote, or 54,993 votes, while Gonzales-Torres finished second with 30.70 percent, or 36,708 votes. Republican Calvin Lee finished third with 13.65 percent and therefore did not advance.
The result gives Gomez a clear numerical advantage from the primary but also demonstrates that nearly one-third of voters were willing to support a Democratic alternative before the Ethics Committee publicly confirmed its investigation. Gonzales-Torres has sought to turn the allegations into an argument for generational and political change, while Gomez is relying on his incumbency, constituent relationships and legislative record.
California's 34th District, centered in Los Angeles and including heavily Democratic communities, is not a conventional Republican-versus-Democrat battleground. The November contest will instead function as a referendum among a strongly Democratic electorate over whether to retain an established incumbent or elevate a more progressive challenger amid unresolved ethics questions.
Gomez has represented the district since 2017, when he won a special election to succeed Xavier Becerra after Becerra became California attorney general. Before entering Congress, Gomez served in the California State Assembly and built a profile on labor, health, climate and economic issues. In Washington he later became known nationally for launching the Dads Caucus and using his experience as a parent to promote family-policy proposals.
The ethics controversy threatens that brand because the caucus's message has always been about more than fathers being present with their children. Its mission statement says dads should do more to advocate for policies that uplift parents and children, while its founders repeatedly framed fatherhood as a responsibility that extends into public life. That makes the chairman's conduct a particularly sensitive subject for members who joined the group because of its values and public identity.
At the same time, it would be premature to treat the investigation as a finding of guilt. House ethics inquiries can end in a range of outcomes, including dismissal, private action, public reprimand, censure recommendations or other sanctions. The committee's Aug. 17 statement deliberately avoided judging the allegations and said no further public comment would be made except in accordance with its rules.
The rules at issue are themselves part of a broader congressional debate. Since the #MeToo era, the House has tightened restrictions on sexual relationships involving members and their own staff. Lawmakers from both parties have recently discussed going further by prohibiting members from having sexual relationships with any congressional staffer, reflecting concerns that the power imbalance between elected officials and employees can exist even when the staffer works in a different office.
The Gomez investigation arrives amid a wider period of scrutiny over alleged misconduct on Capitol Hill. Several lawmakers from both parties have faced ethics investigations, resignations or calls for discipline in 2026. That broader context has increased pressure on party leaders to apply standards consistently rather than treating allegations as politically useful only when they involve the other party.
Former California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell is one prominent example, but his case should not be conflated with Gomez's. Swalwell resigned from Congress and ended his campaign for California governor in April after multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct, including allegations of nonconsensual sex and rape. Swalwell denied the accusations, and law-enforcement investigations have continued. In August, Reuters reported that the FBI searched his Washington-area home and seized electronic devices as part of an investigation. None of those developments establishes guilt, and they concern separate allegations from the Gomez inquiry.
The comparison nevertheless matters politically because Gomez and Swalwell were allies in the California Democratic delegation and because early reporting about Gomez's 2023 encounter placed it outside Swalwell's Washington residence. That proximity has encouraged partisan efforts to portray the two cases as part of a single Democratic scandal. The facts support saying that both men have faced serious allegations and investigations; they do not support assuming that the allegations are connected or that conduct attributed to one lawmaker proves anything about the other.
For Gomez, the immediate institutional question is likely to be resolved before the ethics investigation itself. His reported decision not to seek another term as Dads Caucus chairman opens the way for members to choose a new leader after the election even if the committee has not finished its work by then.
That transition could help the caucus separate its policy agenda from the personal controversy surrounding its founder. Olszewski's office has indicated that members expect leadership changes when the group next meets, and the departure of Auchincloss shows that at least some lawmakers want a clearer response while the inquiry remains open.
Gomez's office has not publicly framed the leadership decision as a resignation under pressure. The Washington Examiner's reporting, based on anonymous sources familiar with internal conversations, suggests he had discussed leaving the chairmanship before the most serious allegations became public. That makes claims that he was 'forced to step down because of a sex scandal' too categorical based on the record available so far.
The stronger and more defensible description is that Gomez plans to relinquish the leadership role while under growing ethics scrutiny, at a time when some caucus members have called for a transition and at least one has departed because of the allegations.
His future in Congress will be decided separately by voters. The November election gives Gonzales-Torres an opportunity to argue that the district should not wait for the Ethics Committee to finish its work before choosing new representation. Gomez, meanwhile, can point to the absence of any finding against him and argue that allegations should be investigated rather than treated as verdicts.
The competing positions create a difficult choice for Democratic voters. An ethics investigation is serious, particularly when it concerns alleged inappropriate sexual contact with a congressional employee, but due process and the presumption that allegations remain unproven also matter. The top-two format ensures that voters will not be choosing between parties so much as deciding how heavily to weigh the controversy against Gomez's record and Gonzales-Torres's progressive challenge.
The Dads Caucus episode also illustrates a recurring problem in political scandal coverage: personal admissions, anonymous accusations, formal investigations and proven misconduct are different categories of information. Gomez has admitted marital infidelity. He has denied unlawful or nonconsensual conduct. An unnamed woman, through attorneys, has accused him of sexual harassment and assault. The House Ethics Committee is investigating. None of those facts can responsibly be collapsed into a claim that the committee has found him guilty or that his caucus has formally expelled him.
What can be said with confidence is that the political consequences are already real. Gomez's chairmanship is nearing its end, members of the group he founded are debating its leadership, a colleague has left the caucus, Democratic women leaders are pressing for speed, and his opponent is using the controversy as part of a competitive all-Democratic general election.
The next milestones will come from two different institutions. The House Ethics Committee will determine whether the evidence supports a finding that Gomez violated congressional standards, while voters in California's 34th District will decide whether he should return to Congress for another term. Those decisions may not arrive in that order.
Until the committee releases findings, the central facts remain unsettled. Gomez is an incumbent under formal ethics review, not a lawmaker found guilty of sexual assault. He is preparing to leave the chairmanship of the Congressional Dads Caucus, but available reporting indicates that the idea of a leadership transition may have preceded the most serious public allegations. And his November opponent is a progressive Democrat who earned nearly 31 percent of the primary vote, not simply a partisan label imposed by critics.
May you like
The distinction between those verified facts and the more sensational claims surrounding them will be essential as the campaign enters its final weeks. For Gomez, the controversy threatens both his political future and the family-policy institution he helped build. For the Dads Caucus, the challenge is to preserve its mission while demonstrating that its values are not dependent on any one member. And for voters, the unresolved Ethics Committee inquiry ensures that questions about conduct, accountability and credibility will remain central to the CA-34 race through Election Day.
