Politics
Pressure grows for Swalwell to exit governor’s race, criminal inquiry launched
SACRAMENTO — The fallout over allegations against Rep. Eric Swalwell grew Saturday as his fellow gubernatorial candidates faced a new race and Democrats were forced into a rapid test of how they respond to accusations of sexual misconduct.
Within hours of the accusations against Swalwell being made public, the Northern California congressman’s campaign began to unravel and a chorus of top Democrats urged him to drop out. Staff members resigned, his fundraising website went offline and allies moved quickly to distance themselves from a candidate who had been gaining momentum as a front-runner in the race to lead the Golden State.
The repercussions extended beyond Swalwell’s campaign for governor. The Manhattan district attorney’s office opened an investigation into sexual assault allegations against Swalwell by a former staffer and issued a statement Saturday that urged “survivors and anyone with knowledge of these allegations to contact our Special Victims Division.” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) posted a video on X saying that she plans to force a House vote next week to expel Swalwell.
Swalwell has denied the allegations, calling them “flat [out] false.”
The upheaval has created an opening for lesser-known contenders to gain traction just as voters are beginning to turn their attention to the race — a spotlight now intensified by the controversy.
The speed and severity of the response underscores how quickly political support can erode — and reflects a broader shift in how such allegations are handled in the post-#MeToo era, which has been intensified by the scrutiny surrounding the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
“Ask any woman staffer over the age of 45 what her experience was like, and this was a fairly prevalent sort of situation,” said Elizabeth Ashford, a veteran Democratic strategist. “It was allowed. I really think it shows a lot of growth on the part of political professionalism, that these things are taken seriously.”
As of Saturday afternoon, Swalwell ignored calls to drop out of the race and resign from Congress, even as outrage and criticism swelled. A Bay Area fundraiser was canceled and major institutional backers abandoned the campaign. The California Labor Federation withdrew its endorsement, SEIU California rescinded its backing and urged Swalwell to exit the race, and the California Police Chiefs Assn. suspended its support.
Speculation swirled Saturday about Swalwell’s whereabouts after the congressman announced that he intended to spend time with his wife.
A man who opened the door of Swalwell’s rental home in Livermore early Saturday refused to talk to a Times reporter. Swalwell has claimed that he rents space in the one-story house, located on a quiet cul-de-sac. He also owns a home in Washington, D.C., but no one inside responded when a reporter rang Saturday.
Livermore residents couldn’t escape news of the scandal. “Swalwell faces assault claims,” read the front page of the East Bay Times, stacked up at the Lucky grocery story around the corner from Swalwell’s rental home.
The most serious allegation against Swalwell is from a woman who worked for the congressman who said their relationship was at times consensual, but that he sexually assaulted her twice when she was too intoxicated to consent, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Three other women have also accused Swalwell of sexual misconduct, including sending unsolicited nude photos, according to CNN.
The allegations prompted several members of his campaign to abruptly walk away from their jobs. One senior campaign staffer said they resigned after hearing the seriousness of the allegations, adding that they didn’t want to be put in a position where they were using their own credibility to defend Swalwell.
Former staffers in Swalwell’s congressional office traded messages in group texts after the news reports, with many expressing shock and horror at the allegations, according to two former employees.
A group of senior staff in Swalwell’s congressional office and campaign said in a statement Saturday that they “stand with our former colleague and the other women who have come forward” and that others “should stand with them, too.”
Kyle Alagood, an attorney who worked for Swalwell’s congressional office and his short-lived presidential campaign, told The Times he was “disgusted and pissed off.”
“I pray he has the decency to resign for the sake of his wife and kids,” said Alagood, adding that Swalwell must also “face the full legal consequences of his actions.”
Rob Stutzman, a longtime GOP strategist, said the impact of Swalwell’s political advisers quitting and his endorsements being yanked has sunk his chances in the governor’s race whether he stays in or not.
Stutzman advised former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger during the 2003 recall when The Times reported allegations of inappropriate behavior with women during his bodybuilding and film career. Stutzman said the severity of the allegations against Swalwell makes the situation very different from that involving Schwarzenegger, who didn’t lose endorsements.
“If this had been the circumstances … I would have quit,” Stutzman said. “They’re just not the same.”
While Swalwell’s political future hangs in the balance, political insiders are closely watching who will be the beneficiary of the chaos. There are eight Democrats running: billionaire Tom Steyer, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, state schools Supt. Tony Thurmond, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state Controller Betty Yee and Swalwell. There are two GOP candidates: Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.
Loyola Marymount University law professor Jessica Levinson said that with key endorsements, such as labor, now back up for grabs, anyone can jump to the front of the pack. She said the safest bet on who will gain an advantage is Porter and Steyer, who with Swalwell have been the top candidates in recent opinion polls.
“But, I think this is a race where there is no heir apparent,” Levinson said. “You can’t rule out surprises anymore in this race.”
Paul Mitchell, a veteran Democratic strategist, agreed that the upheaval benefits Porter and Steyer, adding that Swalwell’s chances have been reduced to zero.
“First off, I think that staying in the race is not tenable,” Mitchell said. “And so if he does drop out of the race, what it means is that you’re going to have a lot of progressive voters looking for somebody else to go to and the primary beneficiaries should be Porter and Steyer right now, because they’re the other two that are in that kind of first tier of Democratic candidates that have been splitting up that progressive base.”
Allegations of inappropriate behavior by Swalwell had circulated for weeks on social media and in political circles. Once the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN posted stories with details from women accusing Swalwell of sexual misconduct, including rape, the swift rebuke was likened by one political strategist to a bomb detonating.
Those media outlets reported that the staff member accusing Swalwell of rape was 21 when she began working for him in 2019 in his Castro Valley district office. She said Swalwell, who is nearly two decades older, quickly began sending her messages and then nude pictures on Snapchat, a platform in which messages and images disappear after being viewed.
She said that in September 2019 she had drinks with the congressman, blacked out and could tell she had had intercourse when she woke up naked in Swalwell’s hotel bed, according to the report. In a separate encounter years later, she said he forced himself on her while she was too intoxicated to consent and despite her protests.
She said she did not report the incidents to police, citing fears she would not be believed and concerns about professional repercussions.
Another woman who began messaging with Swalwell about her interest in Democratic politics last year said she met him for drinks and that she was attempting to fend off his advances without hurting potential job opportunities when she began feeling “really fuzzy” and intoxicated, according to CNN. She told the outlet that she ended up in Swalwell’s hotel room without a memory of how she got there.
Social media creator Ally Sammarco said Swalwell sent her unsolicited nude pictures in 2021, when she was 24 years old. Another woman in her 20s, who works in marketing, said the congressman sent her unsolicited videos of his penis.
Swalwell, who is married with three young children, posted a video on Instagram on Friday in which he called the accusations of inappropriate behavior “flat [out] false,” while also acknowledging unspecified poor behavior.
“I don’t suggest to you in any way that I am perfect or that I am a saint,” he said in the video. “I’ve certainly made mistakes in judgment in my past. But those mistakes are between me and my wife. And to her I apologize deeply for putting her in this position.”
Elias Dabaie, an attorney representing Swalwell, sent cease-and-desist letters to at least two people demanding that they stop accusing the congressman of sexual assault, according to CNN. Dabaie was asked by CNN whether the congressman’s comments can be construed as acknowledging that he cheated on his wife, while denying doing anything illegal.
“I’m not going to get into the details of that,” Dabaie said.
Times staff writers Melody Peterson and Gavin Quinton contributed to this report.
By John Ismay, Gilad Thaler, Nikolay Nikolov, Rafaela Balster, Stephanie Swart and Whitney Shefte
June 19, 2026
Politics
Reporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
They didn’t know what to do.
Just before 4 a.m. ET on Wednesday, President Trump blindsided everyone in the U.S. Senate. In a post on Truth Social, the president declared he was “cancelling the Senate hearing” for his Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton. Moreover, the President said he would withhold Clayton’s nomination from “going forward until Jamie McDonald is approved to be U.S. Attorney.”
If confirmed, Clayton would vacate his post as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That’s the slot for which the President is nominating McDonald.
TRUMP SAYS SENATE HEARING ON DNI NOMINEE IS CANCELED UNTIL US ATTORNEY REPLACEMENT CONFIRMED
Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, speaks next to Jessica S. Tisch, New York Police Department commissioner, during a press conference at NYPD headquarters following the arrest of suspects charged with igniting IEDs near Gracie Mansion, the home of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in New York City on March 9, 2026. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)
So what would happen with the hearing?
Lawmakers and aides scrambled as they woke to the news Wednesday morning. After all, Trump is the president. He doesn’t have the authority to cancel a Senate hearing.
“Yeah. I don’t think that’s his call,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a member of the Intelligence Committee.
One senior source told Fox News they presumed that Clayton’s confirmation hearing would forge ahead. Another told Fox the fate of the hearing was “undetermined.”
On one hand, lawmakers and aides had to first digest what was happening. Was the President withdrawing Clayton’s nomination? Was he saying he just wasn’t allowing Clayton to testify? Did the head of the executive branch really believe he could bigfoot a congressional hearing? Or was this the president flexing his political muscle, testing Senate Republicans to see how compliant they might be with his intimation — and potentially cancel the hearing on their own?
So was Clayton’s hearing on or off?
“Are we going to have an Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing today?” yours truly asked panel Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he slid behind a backdoor to a hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Silence from Cotton.
SCOOP: TOP GOP SEN. COTTON TO MEET WITH EMBATTLED TRUMP DEFENSE NOMINEE AS DOUBTS SWIRL
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arrives for a vote in the U.S. Capitol on April 30, 2025, stating the war with Iran will continue for weeks as the U.S. limits their offensive capabilities. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“Do you know the answer?” I followed up.
“Do you think the President overstepped his bounds, saying he was canceling the hearing?” I continued.
By that point, Cotton was well behind the doorway and it closed.
“I have never seen anything quite like this,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the longest-serving members on the Intelligence Committee in Senate history. “Everybody else is going to have to keep guessing for a while.”
It was Washington whiplash.
“Things change around here pretty quick, Chad,” quipped Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
But a bit later, Cotton finally weighed-in when he posted on X that the hearing would proceed. The Arkansas Republican then materialized again in the hallway, heading for an elevator bank.
“To be clear, you will proceed with the hearing and you expect Jay Clayton to be there despite what the President said?” I asked.
A steel-faced Cotton stared straight ahead at the green elevator door.
“Chad, you have our statement,” said a terse Cotton.
But an hour later, Cotton ditched the hearing after the President blocked Clayton from testifying.
“It’s regrettable that the President has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” said Cotton in a new statement on X. “While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”
The stunning reversal left everyone trying to grasp what happened. And what might be next.
SPRINT TO CONFIRM TRUMP NOMINEES KICKS OFF IN JANUARY
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a morning work meeting to “revive balanced, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all” in the presence of the G7 countries, partner countries, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD, as part of the G7 summit, in Evian, eastern France, on June 17, 2026. (Ludovic MARIN / AFP via Getty Images)
“I am not sure whether Jay Clayton has simply been postponed or withdrawn,” mused Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “I wonder whether Jay Clayton knows whether he has been postponed or withdrawn.”
Democrats and Republicans brokered a fragile agreement weeks ago to renew FISA Section 702. The intelligence community argues that program is the powerful tool in the American arsenal to track and combat potential terrorism. Congress repeatedly punted a full renewal for months.
But with both bodies on the precipice of reauthorizing the program, President Trump announced he would install housing czar Bill Pulte as interim DNI. Democrats balked at Pulte, noting he had no intelligence experience. Plus, they viewed him as a political hack who would run roughshod over America’s intelligence apparatus.
So Democrats pulled their support from the FISA compromise.
Most Republicans weren’t exactly enamored with Pulte, either. And those worried about the nation’s security pushed to block Pulte from entering the DNI’s office. That’s why Cotton scheduled Clayton’s confirmation hearing so quickly. It was thought that the Senate might be able to pivot after the hearing and confirm Clayton on the floor late this week or early next.
Rapid confirmation of Clayton was essential. Such a scenario would unlock Democrats’ votes to reauthorize FISA Section 702 after the program’s congressional blessing expired a week ago.
That was the plan. At least until the president initiated the firestorm over Clayton’s confirmation hearing this week.
“Another Trump victory gets upended by an impulse,” vented Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. “It’s frustrating.”
WHY TRUMP PICKED BILL PULTE TO LEAD US INTELLIGENCE AS CRITICS QUESTION HIS QUALIFICATIONS
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., spoke to reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on April 1, 2025, before the weekly Republican Senate policy luncheon. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
But wait. There’s more.
President Trump inserted another chestnut — or hot potato — into his pre-dawn Truth Social screed. Especially if you thought the president was going to make it easy for Congress to hastily re-up FISA as soon as the Senate confirmed Clayton.
“To add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said.
He added that his plan was for Pulte to “remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence” and declared that “Republicans fell into a trap.”
The SAVE America Act is the touchstone of President Trump’s 2026 legislative agenda. It requires proof of citizenship to vote. However, the bill has never garnered even 50 yeas in the Senate on two previous test votes.
“We’ve got to pass the SAVE America Act and conditioning passage of FISA on the prior passage of SAVE America would be a great thing,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Other Senate Republicans were more realistic, based on the legislative history of the SAVE America Act.
“You can’t always get what you want,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “I mean, I want a Porsche for my birthday. I’m not going to get it.”
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said a classified briefing reinforced his view that Iran’s leaders would use a nuclear weapon if they obtained one during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C. (Elizabeth Frantz / Reuters)
Democrats seethed about national security as Republicans squirmed.
“We had a path forward as of yesterday (on FISA) and today we don’t,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. “This has become a complete debacle and now it’s up to the White House to figure out a path forward here.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
No one knows what’s next for Clayton. Or McDonald. Or FISA. And there’s high skepticism anything happens on the SAVE America Act. So it’s all in a cryogenic Congressional freeze.
Regardless, Clayton’s confirmation hearing never happened. Such hearings are the responsibility of the legislative branch. But by the end of the day, there was no question who canceled it.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled for gun rights and against drug laws on Thursday, striking down part of a federal law that made it a crime for an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug like marijuana to own firearms.
All nine justices agreed the law was too broad and overly harsh.
They left open the possibility that “addicts” and “unusually dangerous” people who were impaired by drugs could be denied guns.
The Trump administration had urged the court to uphold the prosecution of Ali Hemani, a Texas man who was investigated for alleged terrorist ties and admitted to being a regular user of marijuana.
Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives and any other person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
In defense of the law, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that “habitual” drug users were akin to “habitual drunkards” in early American history, and could therefore be denied the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But that historical argument fell flat, including with the court’s conservatives.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is a skeptic of laws that give prosecutors broad and unchecked power.
“The law automatically bans an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he ceases being one,” he wrote in U.S. vs. Hemani. “It doesn’t matter what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others.”
The government’s view “suggests that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”
And a conviction can lead to a 15-year prison term, he added.
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the ruling.
“The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.”
Some defenders of gun regulation opposed the ruling.
“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hemani,” said Janet Carter, managing director of 2nd Amendment litigation at Everytown Law. “That said, the court has stressed that its decision is limited — rightly recognizing that drugs and guns can make for a dangerous mix, and leaving open the possibility of prosecuting someone with proof that their drug use renders their gun possession dangerous to themselves or others.”
Two years ago, Hunter Biden, the president’s son, was charged and convicted under the gun law for making a false statement when he applied for a gun permit. He denied being a drug user at a time when prosecutors said he was addicted to crack cocaine.
Then-President Biden gave him a full pardon in December 2024.
Hemani was investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorists but was not charged with such a crime.
In 2020, he and his parents “traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem [Suleimani], an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before,” the administration told the court last year.
The FBI obtained a warrant to search Hemani’s family home. Agents found a Glock 9-millimeter pistol, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine.
When questioned, Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.
A federal grand jury in Texas charged him with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana.
But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this restriction on guns violated the 2nd Amendment. It said that “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”
Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration urged the justices to uphold the law.
“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” the solicitor general said.
But the justices affirmed the 5th Circuit’s decision.
Still pending before the court is a 2nd Amendment challenge to new laws in Hawaii and California that would prohibit carrying guns into private businesses unless the owner or manager had given their express approval.
Gun rights advocates said such laws, if enforced, are intended to deny their rights to carry concealed weapons when they leave home. The case is Wolford vs. Lopez.
The justices will issue decisions next week on Tuesday and Thursday.
-
New York31 minutes agoVideo: Fans Show Up to the Parade in Their Best Knicks-Themed Attire
-
Los Angeles, Ca38 minutes agoVictims sought after man allegedly points gun at passing cars in Santa Clarita Valley
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoBest barbershop in Metro Detroit: Finalists for this year’s Vote 4 The Best
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoHow to watch San Francisco Giants vs. Miami Marlins
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoDrivers in North Texas struggle with Friday floods
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoThree wildfires burn more than 20,000 acres in Miami-Dade, force road closures
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoMBTA, state transportation chief apologizes for ‘insensitive’ employee hair-pulling incident
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoMan arrested on suspicion of murder in Denver shooting near South Park Hill, Hale
