“I am imperfect. I have made mistakes. But I do not believe I committed sexual harassment, and the factual findings of this investigation do not justify branding me as though I did.
Back to stories
The House Censures Chuck Edwards 413-2 After the Ethics Committee Finds Two Years of "Persistent Unprofessional and Inappropriate Conduct" Toward Two Young Female Staffers — and He Calls the Investigation "a Russian Show Trial"
September 1, 2026
On September 1, 2026, the House voted 413-2 to censure Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC), the first time the Ethics Committee has recommended a censure since 2010. The only two no votes were Edwards himself and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC), who said he would not vote to censure Edwards while House Republicans had declined to censure Del. Stacey Plaskett over her contacts with Jeffrey Epstein. The bipartisan Ethics Committee found substantial evidence that Edwards violated the chamber's prohibition on sexual harassment through "persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers" over roughly two years — deeply personal late-night text messages, poetry, one-on-one dinners and trips, and a stream of gifts that included jewelry, guns, shoes, a KitchenAid mixer and a robotic vacuum. The panel stopped short of finding a quid pro quo, resting instead on a hostile work environment, and wrote that Edwards had "refused to acknowledge the reality of the power imbalance between a Member of Congress and young staffers." Edwards had already abandoned his re-election bid on August 5, after the committee recommended censure. He nonetheless fought the vote, circulating a twenty-page letter to colleagues and using his floor time to argue the findings did not amount to harassment. After the vote he stood in the well of the House while Speaker Mike Johnson read the resolution aloud, and told reporters on his way out that the investigation was "very much akin to a Russian show trial." All thirteen of Edwards's North Carolina colleagues voted to censure him. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM), who chairs the Democratic Women's Caucus, argued censure was far too light a penalty and called for rules changes stripping committee assignments or allowing expulsion; she and Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL), her Republican Women's Caucus counterpart, have been drafting a bipartisan overhaul of how the House handles sexual misconduct.
9
Statements Recorded
See what your representatives said?
9 Statements
“Representative Edwards’ interpretation of his own conduct does not change how the women experienced it. Rep. Edwards may not have made physical advances or explicit propositions, but sexual harassment does not require either. His conduct was inappropriate, unwelcome, and most important, created a hostile work environment.
“The committee concluded that I engaged in no sexual activity. The committee concluded that I did not explicitly proposition any staff member.
“For sexual harassment to truly have no place in the congressional workplace, the principle cannot exist only on paper.
“I’m asking you to distinguish between conduct that you might personally have handled differently, and conduct that warrants the solemn judgment of censure by the United States House of Representatives.
“These women lost their jobs because of Mr. Edwards’ behavior. He should lose his. It’s time we reform the rules in Congress so abusers like Edwards are at least stripped of committee assignments or expelled if the offense calls for it.
“Judge me on the facts, not on the inference, insinuation, or headlines. Regret is not an admission of sexual harassment.
“He engaged in two years of sexual harassment, and he’s going to have to be embarrassed for two minutes on the floor.
“I don’t need a letter to convince me of what I’ve already decided on.