Despite having resigned from Congress in disgrace, former Reps. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, still may qualify for taxpayer-funded retirement benefits.
Under current federal law, lawmakers who serve at least five years are eligible for pensions once they reach age 62, regardless of the circumstances surrounding their departure.
Both Swalwell and Gonzales meet that threshold, potentially entitling them to annual taxpayer-funded payouts despite the controversies that forced their resignations, The Washington Post reported.
Swalwell, 45, who spent more than 13 years in Congress, could receive roughly $22,000 per year, while Gonzales, also 45, may collect close to $15,000 annually, according to estimates cited by pension experts and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.
The revelations have fueled outrage among conservatives and taxpayer watchdogs, who argue that public officials accused of serious misconduct should not continue to benefit from generous government pensions funded by American taxpayers.
Swalwell has denied allegations of sexual assault made by a former staffer, while Gonzales admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a staffer — a violation of House rules — in a case that ended in tragedy when the woman later died.
Neither has been convicted of a crime, a key distinction under current law.
Existing statutes allow lawmakers to lose pensions only if convicted of certain offenses tied to public corruption, national security, or similar crimes.
Ethics violations, allegations, or even resignation under pressure do not trigger forfeiture.
That gap has prompted renewed legislative efforts.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced the No Pensions for Congressional Predators Act, which would strip pensions from members convicted of felony sex crimes.
Hawley called the current system "unacceptable," arguing taxpayers should not fund benefits for lawmakers who violate the public trust.
Bipartisan House members including Reps. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Nancy Mace, R-S.C., Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., Emily Randall, D-Wash., and James Walkinshaw, D-Va., introduced the bipartisan Congressional Pension Integrity Act.
The controversy highlights a broader issue: Congressional pensions remain significantly more generous than those in the private sector, where traditional pension plans have largely been replaced by 401(k)-style systems.
NTUF analysts note that congressional pensions can exceed private-sector equivalents by two to three times.
Critics say the current rules create a disconnect between public expectations and reality.
While Congress has passed reforms in the past — including tightening pension forfeiture for corruption-related convictions — loopholes remain, particularly when it comes to misconduct that does not result in a criminal conviction.
For many conservatives, the Swalwell and Gonzales cases underscore the need for stricter accountability measures.
As legislative proposals gain traction, the debate is likely to intensify over whether lawmakers who leave office under ethical clouds should continue receiving taxpayer-funded retirement benefits.
Until changes are enacted, however, the law remains clear: Length of service, not conduct, largely determines whether former members of Congress receive a pension.
Charlie McCarthy ✉
Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.