An embattled lawmaker facing five decades in prison will face the congressional spotlight Thursday during an ethics trial that could result in her expulsion from the House of Representatives.

Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., is expected to testify before the House Ethics Committee during a rare public hearing Thursday afternoon. The case is separate from a sprawling federal indictment accusing Cherfilus-McCormick of stealing more than $5 million in disaster relief funds to finance her inaugural congressional run in 2021 and purchase luxury items, including a large diamond ring. The Florida Democrat is also alleged to have participated in a straw donor scheme and conspired to file a false federal tax return.

Cherfilus-McCormick has repeatedly sought to delay the hearing, citing the ongoing federal criminal case and losing her legal representation earlier in March. It is not clear whether the Florida Democrat will be represented by an attorney at the hearing. 

Cherfilus McCormick said in a statement sent to Fox News that she is “deeply disappointed” the bipartisan committee chose to proceed with a trial, alleging a violation of her due process rights.

NANCY MACE TO FORCE VOTE TARGETING FELLOW GOP LAWMAKER ACCUSED OF AFFAIR WITH STAFFER

“I urge the Committee to follow its own precedents and uphold fairness and not allow this process to be driven by politics or numbers,” Cherfilus-McCormick said. “I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight and challenge these inaccuracies, when I am legally able to do so.”

Cherfilus-McCormick has denied wrongdoing after being indicted in November 2025 and pleaded not guilty in federal court. She has repeatedly defied calls from Republicans to resign — a move that would have avoided the ethics hearing and possible expulsion.

According to the indictment, Trinity Health Care Services, a company owned by Cherfilus-McCormick and her brother, Edwin Cherfilus, received $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) overpayment from the state of Florida for a COVID-19 vaccine contract.

Rather than return the money, federal prosecutors allege the duo laundered the money through multiple bank accounts to hide its origin.

The House Ethics Committee unveiled a 27-count “statement of alleged violations” against Cherfilus-McCormick that is expected to be presented during the hearing Thursday. 

The hearing itself is extremely rare. It will be the first time the eight-member panel will hold a public hearing against a lawmaker since 2010.

MIKE JOHNSON ASKS EMBATTLED HOUSE REPUBLICAN TONY GONZALES TO DROP RE-ELECTION BID

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., has said he would move forward with a resolution seeking to expel Cherfilus-McCormick regardless of the trial’s outcome. Under House rules, two-thirds of lawmakers — meaning a swath of Democrats — would need to vote in the affirmative to expel the Florida Democrat. 

“You’re in a situation where you have a sitting member of Congress who’s allegedly stolen over $5 million in taxpayer funds,” Steube told reporters Tuesday. “She should immediately resign instead of going through this process. But she’s going to force us to do this.”

Steube also said a possible recommendation of expulsion from the committee could force Democrats to support his resolution.

“If the committee in a bipartisan manner, it recommends an expulsion that puts the Democratic caucus in a very tough position because you would be undermining your own members on the Ethics Committee.”

But House Democratic leadership, who have largely defended Cherfilus-McCormick, has yet to say whether they would support an expulsion resolution following the hearing’s conclusion. 

Cherfilus-McCormick was among a group of Democrats who stood behind House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., when he gave remarks on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shutdown outside the U.S. Capitol last week. He responded, “next question,” when asked by Fox News about the expulsion threat on Tuesday.

“I’m not going to prejudge the outcome that they arrive to,” House Democratic Conference Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said Wednesday. “I respect the members of the ethics committee and the work that they have to do.”

Democrats’ refusal so far to condemn Cherfilus-McCormick has prompted sharp criticism from Republicans. 

“So-called ‘Leader’ Hakeem Jeffries talks a big game on corruption, but when it’s one of his own, he suddenly loses his voice,” NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella said in a statement. 

Some Republicans have also complained about a double standard with the chamber’s treatment of Cherfilus-McCormick by making comparisons to former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. The scandal-plagued lawmaker was expelled from Congress in 2023 before an ethics hearing or criminal conviction.

“It seems like what happened to George was just like a runaway freight train up here,” Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., said Wednesday. “They didn’t even give George an opportunity to get fully through ethics. And so this one’s been a little bit more deliberate.”

“I think going forward, how this one’s been conducted is how it should go,” Donalds added, referring to the anticipated Cherfilus-McCormick hearing. “It should be deliberate before these kind of judgments just end up on the House floor.”

A former accountant and lawyer for the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein both told the House Oversight Committee earlier this month that the Department of Justice had never interviewed them about Epstein’s crimes.

“I’ve never been questioned by any government authority,” Epstein’s ex-accountant Richard Kahn said.

He noted that he had received a grand jury subpoena from the Southern District of New York and from the U.S. Virgin Island’s Department of Justice for documents about Epstein’s property.

“Both of the requests were for the same thing. They were asking for Epstein’s estate documents. They wanted to see his will and his 1953 trust,” Kahn said.

HOUSE OVERSIGHT SUBPOENAS AG BONDI IN PROBE OF EPSTEIN CASE ‘MISMANAGEMENT’

Similarly, Darren Indyke said he had never been asked about Epstein’s dealings.

“Personally, no,” Indyke told the Oversight Committee. “I don’t believe I have.”

When asked if that surprised him, Indyke told investigators he believed it was consistent with the scope of his employment.

“Given my role as a transactional attorney for Mr. Epstein, no,” Indyke said.

Epstein, a former financier with a formidable social circle, died in 2019 while imprisoned on charges of sex trafficking minors. His death, which was ruled a suicide, left behind questions about whether Epstein had facilitated illegal sexual encounters for some of his contacts and prompted public demands for accountability for possible accomplices.

Like many public figures, Kahn and Indyke both appear in the Epstein Files — troves of documents released by the DOJ in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CALLS BILL GATES, LEON BLACK TO TESTIFY OVER JEFFREY EPSTEIN TIES

Their communications in the files do not, on their own, implicate any wrongdoing, and neither does their appearance before the House Oversight Committee.

Their depositions come among a series of other interviews from lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Interviewers have called figures like former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, billionaire businessman Les Wexner and Epstein’s accomplice and romantic partner Ghislaine Maxwell to deliver testimony.

So far, none of the subjects interviewed by the Oversight Committee has faced charges for their proximity to Epstein, except for Maxwell. She was convicted in 2022 on charges of exploiting underage girls.

Indyke, the attorney, said he was aware of Epstein’s original 2008 plea deal in Florida, where he admitted to soliciting a minor for prostitution.

“He was adamant that he had no idea that anyone involved was underage and personally assured me that he would never again let himself be in that position. I believed him, and I made the mistake of believing that Mr. Epstein would not again commit a crime,” Indyke said.

GHISLAINE MAXWELL PLEADS FIFTH AMENDMENT, DODGES QUESTIONS IN HOUSE OVERSIGHT EPSTEIN PROBE

Kahn, Epstein’s accountant, gave a similar statement.

“Epstein told me his 2006 arrest was a mistake, that he did not know the woman was underage, and that nothing like that would happen again,” Kahn said.

“I believed him at the time and never saw what appeared to be a minor in his presence. Had I learned of his horrific behavior, I would have quit work immediately,” Kahn added.

Fox News Digital reached out to Kahn and Indyke for comment.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is returning next month to New Hampshire, the state that for a century has held the first primary in the race for the White House.

But that doesn’t mean the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee is looking to make a comeback in 2028.

While a growing number of potential contenders for the next Democratic presidential nomination have made stops in New Hampshire, as well as in South Carolina and Nevada, two other key early primary states, Clinton said in an interview last month she would not run for president again and that the party had a “good bench.”

Instead, Clinton will headline the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s (NHDP) annual spring fundraising dinner. The state party announced the news Thursday and said the gala, the McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club Dinner, would be held April 25 in Nashua, New Hampshire.

HEAD HERE FOR THE LATEST FOX NEWS REPORTING, ANALYSIS, AND OPINION ON HILLARY CLINTON

“Through decades of public service — as first lady, a U.S. senator, and secretary of state — Secretary Clinton has fought tirelessly for women’s rights and been a champion for economic security around the world,” longtime NHDP chair Ray Buckley said. “Her work to expand voting rights, strengthen child and family leave policies and combat global health crises has made a lasting impact both here and abroad.”

Buckley told Fox News Digital Clinton will salute retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen for her 40 years of public service. Shaheen was the first woman in the nation’s history elected both governor and senator.

A spokesperson for Clinton told Fox News Digital the former secretary is excited about returning to New Hampshire.

But not everyone’s happy with Clinton’s return to the key New England swing state.

HILLARY CLINTON COMES OUT SWINGING FOLLOWING EPSTEIN DEPOSITION

Responding to the news, a longtime progressive leader in New Hampshire, who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely, told Fox News Digital, “Although this may be a good invite to raise money for the party, it is another example of how completely tone-deaf the party is to the need for real change.

“As exemplary as Hillary Clinton’s conduct was with respect to the Epstein congressional subpoena, she’s yesterday’s news, hasn’t offered a new idea in decades and doesn’t serve the needs of building a new Democratic majority in New Hampshire.”

Clinton won the 2008 New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary in her marathon battle against former President Barack Obama for the party’s nomination.

Eight years later, in her second White House bid, she lost the New Hampshire primary in a landslide to progressive champion Bernie Sanders, the senator from neighboring Vermont.

Since her loss to President Donald Trump in the 2016 general election, Clinton has returned twice to New Hampshire. She made a stop in Concord in December 2017 as part of her book tour. And she spoke at Dartmouth College in 2019.

While some on the left take issue with the optics of Clinton’s return to New Hampshire, both the former secretary of state and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have long been supporters of New Hampshire’s cherished position at the top of the primary calendar.

Lucas Meyer, a New Hampshire-based non-profit leader and former longtime president of the New Hampshire Young Democrats, noted that “a lot of New Hampshire Democrats have a lot of affection and love for Secretary Clinton and for her service to our country.”

And Meyer, a former campaign strategist, emphasized the state party’s fundraising dinner that Clinton is headlining “is about funding the apparatus to run campaigns over the next year. Secretary Clinton has a pretty broad appeal, and since she’s not running, there’s a little more flexibility for her to raise money for the party and to attract donors to cut checks for the state.”

EXCLUSIVE: Michael Carbonara, a Republican running in the Sunshine State as a political disruptor to unseat longtime Democratic incumbent Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is pitching an idea to reduce the crippling student loan debt crisis facing the country without shifting the burden to taxpayers.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Carbonara lamented that as America marks its 250th anniversary, “the idea of the American dream has been slipping away” for many young Americans.

He criticized Democrats for promoting affordability while proposing solutions that amount to increased taxes.

“This is the first time where the next generation actually has less opportunity and less freedom than their parents in America’s 250-year history,” he said. “Rather than just tax and tax and tax, which people are tired of, I want to put more money back into the pocket of every American, so life is affordable.”

FOREIGNERS ARE SNAPPING UP US HOMES AND STEALING THE AMERICAN DREAM OUT FROM UNDER FAMILIES

Instead of shifting responsibility to taxpayers, Carbonara blames government subsidies as the “root cause” of rising college costs. A fintech mogul and business leader who also hosts a podcast, he said government subsidies allowed schools to raise prices, making college unaffordable.

“There’s no reason that students need to pay $50,000 a year for an education and wind up with a lifetime of debt that they have to chase every year to pay off,” he said, noting, “That’s not what we want. We want people to be able to go to school, get married, have a good-paying job so they can afford to have a family.”

Carbonara said this is one of the top issues voters voice to him on the campaign trail.

“I don’t just hear from young Americans, I hear from everyone,” he explained.

“The average age of first-time home ownership is now over 40 years old, when 20, 30 years ago, it was below 30 years old,” he went on. “Let’s face it, nobody wants to get married to have kids when you live in a 700-square-foot condo in South Florida.”

VANCE TOUTS TRUMP ECONOMY GAINS DURING NORTH CAROLINA TOUR, CITES RISING HOME PURCHASES

However, unlike former President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, which would have put taxpayers on the hook, Carbonara said addressing government subsidies would place the responsibility on universities.

“The idea of forgiveness, we have to throw that idea out, there’s no forgiveness here,” he said. 

“It’s the university’s responsibility to step up to fix the dilemma. And we need to put together these programs for the universities to be able to fix it because again, they were the ones that received all the funding, all the tuition payments that were guaranteed by the government. So, since they benefited, it’s their responsibility to fix the issues.”

If elected, Carbonara believes he could work on both sides of the aisle to bring a bipartisan solution to the student loan crisis.

“People recognize this is a real crisis,” he said, adding, “This is going to take hard work, and it’s going to require responsibility from both students and, obviously, members of Congress.”

BIPARTISAN HOUSING PUSH ADVANCES, BUT TRUMP-BACKED INVESTOR BAN FACES RESISTANCE

Ultimately, Carbonara said that with the American dream spiraling out of reach for many, “we’ve come to a crossroads.”

“Do we go to the socialism route… or do we go the route of freedom where we can create opportunity and give people the tools to be self-determined and be able to be prosperous and make their own decisions in life?” he asked.

“That’s the path we need to go to. We need to return to our core values of America that made our country great and give the American freedom and the American dream opportunity back to everyone.”

A conservative watchdog group is adding fodder to the debate over whether the American Bar Association has become a politicized institution favoring the left.

A new report released by Trump-aligned lawfare group America First Legal, co-founded by one of the president’s top advisors, Stephen Miller, claims the ABA’s Standing Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs over the last decade has produced 80% of left-leaning liberal arguments, 20% neutral and zero that are conservatively-aligned. 

Meanwhile, in all six cases the ABA has filed amicus briefs involving Trump, the ABA went against the president or his allies.

President Donald Trump’s second term has included attacks against the ABA, arguing it has politicized its accrediting power and has favored Democratic Party-backed candidates when vetting judicial nominees. The ABA’s size and legacy make it the premier trade association for the legal sector, but some conservatives fear the group’s power is becoming a “monopoly.”

REPUBLICANS CALL FOR TRUMP TO CUT OFF AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

“The ABA requires that amicus briefs be authorized by its board of governors and must be consistent with existing ABA policy or involve matters of ‘special significance to lawyers or the legal profession,’” a press release from AFL argued. “Briefs on birthright citizenship, transgender healthcare for minors and the Texas heartbeat law fall well outside that mandate.”

According to AFL’s audit, which scanned briefs filed between April 2016 and February 2026, there were a total of 87 filed. Seventy of them “favored a liberal or progressive outcome,” AFL argues, while none it came across were “conservative-aligned,” the group added. The remaining covered what AFL described as neutral issues, such as a patent law case.

“The ABA does not categorize its amicus briefs as conservative or liberal but base them on the law. The ABA files amicus briefs that take positions that reflect official ABA policy that has been debated and adopted by the House of Delegates,” the ABA told Fox News Digital.

“The House is the ABA’s policy-making body comprising hundreds of delegates from state bars across the country and a wide range of ABA subject-matter entities and adopts policy only after engaging in a deliberative and representative process. Throughout it all, defending the rule of law is our North Star. “

TRUMP LAWYER IN JACK SMITH CASE DRAWS CONSERVATIVE BACKING AFTER DOJ PRAISE RATTLES ‘ELITE’ LEGAL CONFERENCE

The audit also found in cases where Trump, or a Trump official, was named, and the ABA filed an amicus brief, they argued every time in the direction contrary to the Trump official or Trump himself.

“The ABA presents its amicus program as advancing the interests of the legal profession and the rule of law,” said Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal.

“The data tells a different story,” Hamilton continued. “More than four in five briefs push a progressive agenda, immigration advocacy has become the program’s dominant focus and the organization has not once — in ten years and across two Trump administrations — filed a brief that could be characterized as supportive of a conservative legal position. The ABA is not a neutral arbiter and should be treated no differently than any other liberal advocacy group.”

In President Trump’s second term, the Trump administration has taken several steps to push back against what it says is bias at the ABA. In February 2025, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson announced a new policy prohibiting FTC political appointees from holding leadership roles in the American Bar Association (ABA), participating in ABA events or renewing their ABA memberships. 

That early action was also followed by several others, such as a May letter to the ABA’s president from Attorney General Pam Bondi indicating the Department of Justice would no longer be engaging in its traditional partnership related to vetting judicial nominees, citing “refusal to fix the bias in its ratings process, despite criticism.”

In April, Trump signed an executive order that singled out the ABA and other powerful accrediting groups, warning that anyone engaging in unlawful discrimination would be refused federal recognition.

Senate Democrats blocked an amendment to Trump-backed voter ID legislation that would have done something they publicly support and require photo identification to vote in federal elections.

Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have shown interest in photo voter ID, which has grown in popularity among voters across the country.

“Democrats support voter ID,” Schumer said on a press call earlier this month. “In fact, we included it, and it is included, in our Freedom to Vote legislation several years ago.”

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES ERUPT OVER SENATE GOP, WHITE HOUSE DEAL AMID SAVE ACT FIGHT

Several others have also come out in support of a voter ID bill in recent weeks.

When asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins whether he would support a clean voter ID bill, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said, “Yes.”

“And New Jersey has voter ID laws,” Booker said. “I’ve got to show my driver’s license.”

Still, Democrats blocked an amendment to the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act from Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio, meant to put them on record for that position.

DEMS BLOCK GOP AMENDMENT TYING VOTER ID BILL TO TRANSGENDER SPORTS BAN

Schumer said ahead of the vote that “Republicans are once again wasting time on voter suppression.” 

“Let’s let’s be very clear what this amendment is,” Schumer said. “It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and it’s a giant cover-up to what their bill really does, which is dramatic voter suppression, kicking 20 million or more people off the rolls without their knowledge or consent.”

Senate Republicans argued that if Democrats truly support voter ID, they should back the amendment.

“That is one on which the Democrats have said — Sen. Schumer himself — that ‘we are not opposed to photo ID,’” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said. “Well, let’s test that proposition. Let’s actually have a vote on it and see where the Democrats are.”

Republicans have been engaged in a floor push on the SAVE America Act for the past 10 days, debating the legislation in a bid to shift the narrative from the GOP being unable to advance the bill out of the Senate to Democrats being the ones blocking it.

Senate Democrats have argued that while they support identification to vote, the SAVE America Act goes far beyond that requirement. Schumer and others have likened the broader bill to Jim Crow-era segregationist laws in the Deep South, saying it would disenfranchise voters, particularly minority communities and low-income Americans.

GOP TRIGGERS MARATHON SENATE FIGHT TO EXPOSE DEMS’ OPPOSITION TO TRUMP-BACKED VOTER ID BILL

However, requiring identification is already the practice in 36 states. Of those, 23 require photo ID, while 13 accept another form of identification, such as a bank statement. Nine of those states have Democratic senators.

According to a widely cited Pew Research poll from last year, 71% of Democratic voters support showing government-issued photo ID to vote.

“I know there are a lot of issues in the SAVE America Act, but this particular one focused on photo ID as something that can be easily implemented, which is already being implemented around the country,” Husted said of his amendment.

Senate Democrats blocked the measure once before, when Husted tried to force a vote on a standalone photo voter ID bill last week. His amendment listed several acceptable forms of identification, including an unexpired driver’s license with a photo, an unexpired state-issued ID card with a photo, a valid passport, a valid military or veteran ID with a photo or an unexpired tribal ID with a photo.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who typically breaks with his party, stood alongside Schumer and his colleagues on Thursday. Like other Democrats, he has opposed the SAVE America Act because of its additional provisions, such as giving the Department of Homeland Security access to states’ voter rolls.

But he recently said, “If the GOP wants real reform over a show vote, put out a clean, standalone bill, and I’m AYE.”

Elon Musk’s attorney is urging a federal judge to scrutinize a recent jury verdict that found Musk liable for misleading investors, arguing that the panel’s decision was compromised by bias and even “mocked” the judicial process. 

“Mr. Musk came into this trial concerned that he could not have a fair trial decided by an impartial jury, that he would be deprived of the counsel of his choice, and that he could not present the full testimony of one of the key witnesses to his defense,” Musk’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, wrote in a letter sent to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, the judge presiding over the case. “Unfortunately, and as evidenced by the record and expressed on the jury’s verdict form, each of those fears were realized.”

A jury this month found Musk had misled investors in his 2022 effort to purchase Twitter — now known as ‘X’ — in a lawsuit that focused on allegations that he had misrepresented impacted stock prices. 

Spiro argued that the jury’s conduct raises “a serious issue” about whether Musk received a fair trial — citing what he described as a deliberate and symbolic use of the number 420 — one that he argued has been long associated with Musk — in the verdict form.

META, GOOGLE FACE MASSIVE LIABILITY AS ‘ADDICTED KIDS’ TRIAL CONTINUES IN LA

Musk has repeatedly leaned into internet jokes and references to the “420” number, long associated with marijuana culture. The SEC in 2018 accused Musk of choosing a $420 price point for Tesla shares because it was a reference to pot, which Musk described as “unjustified.”

Spiro noted in the letter that the jury had “emphasized” the $4.20 figure in blue ink and larger font, and described it as a “numerical joke” meant to “send a message” to Musk, in his view, rather than reflect a neutral application of the law. 

He also argued that presentation of the damages number, which stood out from other figures on the form, further underscored his concerns that the verdict was influenced by “bias,” rather than by evidence.

The filing from Spiro comes amid a broader push from Musk’s legal team to make the case that their client was denied a fair trial. He also cited alleged widespread juror hostility and what he described as misconduct by opposing counsel, as well as procedural decisions that limited Musk’s ability to present key testimony.

DOGE’S MEDICAID DATA DUMP AIMS TO EXPOSE FRAUD — BUT PRIVACY AND LEGAL HURDLES LOOM

According to Spiro, juror questionnaires revealed “deep” negative views of Musk, and the court was unable to fully screen out biased jurors due to the prevalence of those opinions. He also claimed opposing counsel engaged in “gamesmanship” that sidelined him from a central trial role and introduced prejudicial arguments unrelated to the core claims.

EX-FBI AGENTS INVOLVED IN ARCTIC FROST PROBE SUE FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION

Despite those concerns, jurors in the case rejected the plaintiffs’ primary allegation — that Musk had orchestrated a deliberate scheme to manipulate Twitter’s stock price during his acquisition effort in 2022. Jurors did, however, still find Musk liable on a narrower issue, stemming from statements he made about the status of the deal.

Spiro, for his part, argued the mixed outcome further underscores the problem — suggesting the liability finding was driven less by the evidence and more by a desire to penalize Musk personally.

“The inescapable conclusion,” he wrote, is that the jury used its verdict to express views about Musk rather than to apply the law impartially.

The court has not yet ruled on the claims, though the filing in question could set up further legal challenges to the verdict, including potential efforts to overturn or revisit the outcome.