Rep. Anna Paulina Luna is forcing the House toward a potential showdown over member expulsions, announcing Monday she will demand floor votes as early as Wednesday to remove two sitting members of Congress over sexual misconduct allegations.

The Florida Republican's targets are Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat who has served since 2013, and Rep. Tony Gonzales, a Texas Republican first elected in 2020. The timing coincides with the House Ethics Committee's announcement that it has opened a formal inquiry into allegations against Swalwell.

Luna's maneuver represents an aggressive use of parliamentary procedure that could bypass normal committee processes and force the full House to vote on expulsion — one of the most severe actions Congress can take against its own members. Expulsion requires a two-thirds majority, a threshold rarely achieved and reserved historically for the most egregious conduct.

A Rare Constitutional Tool

The Constitution grants each chamber of Congress the power to expel members with a two-thirds vote, but the mechanism has been invoked sparingly throughout American history. Since 1789, the House has expelled only five members — three during the Civil War for supporting the Confederacy, and two following criminal convictions for corruption.

According to the New York Times, Luna's move would compel votes before the Ethics Committee completes its investigation, an unusual sequence that inverts the typical process. Normally, ethics inquiries conclude before any expulsion resolution reaches the floor, allowing members to review findings and recommendations.

The sexual misconduct allegations against both members have not been detailed publicly by Luna's office, and neither Swalwell nor Gonzales has been criminally charged. Swalwell's office has not responded to requests for comment, while Gonzales has previously denied any wrongdoing in past controversies.

Political Calculations in a Narrow Majority

Luna's push comes as House Republicans hold a razor-thin majority, making every procedural fight consequential. Forcing a vote on Swalwell could unite Republicans behind removing a vocal Democratic critic, but the inclusion of Gonzales — a fellow Republican who has clashed with the party's conservative wing — complicates the political calculus.

Gonzales has survived previous internal challenges, including a censure attempt by his own state party over votes supporting gun safety measures and same-sex marriage protections. His inclusion in Luna's expulsion effort suggests the resolution may be as much about intraparty score-settling as misconduct accountability.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has not publicly commented on whether he supports Luna's timeline or will attempt to delay the votes. Leadership typically prefers to avoid expulsion debates that force members into politically uncomfortable positions, particularly when allegations remain under investigation.

Ethics Committee Moves Forward

The Ethics Committee's decision to open an inquiry into Swalwell indicates the panel found sufficient preliminary evidence to warrant further investigation. The committee operates on a bipartisan basis, with equal representation from both parties, and its inquiries can take months or years to complete.

Committee rules prohibit members from discussing ongoing investigations publicly, meaning details of the allegations against Swalwell will likely remain sealed unless the inquiry concludes with a public report or recommendation.

The committee has not announced any investigation into Gonzales, raising questions about the evidentiary basis for his inclusion in Luna's expulsion resolution. Without a parallel Ethics Committee inquiry, Gonzales's case may face additional procedural hurdles.

Precedent and Process

Luna's approach mirrors tactics used by members of both parties in recent years to force uncomfortable votes on controversial issues. The maneuver, known as a privileged resolution, allows certain matters to jump the queue and receive floor consideration within two legislative days.

Expulsion resolutions qualify as privileged, but their use without completed ethics investigations breaks with modern precedent. The last successful House expulsion, in 2002, followed a criminal conviction and Ethics Committee recommendation. Attempting expulsion based solely on allegations could set a new and potentially destabilizing precedent.

Legal experts have warned that lowering the evidentiary bar for expulsion could weaponize the process, turning it into a tool for partisan warfare rather than accountability. The two-thirds threshold exists partly to prevent simple majorities from purging political opponents.

Democrats are likely to oppose any expulsion vote for Swalwell without a completed ethics investigation, arguing that due process requires a full review of evidence. Some Republicans may share that concern, particularly regarding Gonzales, whose removal would reduce their already narrow majority.

What Happens Wednesday

If Luna proceeds as announced, the House will face a choice: vote on expulsion immediately or refer the resolutions back to the Ethics Committee for further review. Either outcome carries political risk.

Voting to expel without completed investigations could expose members to accusations of abandoning due process. Voting against expulsion could be portrayed as tolerating misconduct. Referring the matter to committee might satisfy procedural concerns but would hand Democrats a talking point about Republican leadership's inability to control its own members.

The Wednesday timeline also compresses the period for negotiation and coalition-building, potentially catching leadership off guard and limiting their ability to whip votes or craft alternative approaches.

For now, the House braces for a confrontation that will test both its institutional norms and its members' willingness to wield the expulsion power in an era of intense partisan polarization.