In the past week, three different representatives resigned from office before facing possible expulsion from the House for misconduct. However, laws that strip pensions from lawmakers who betray the public trust narrow the list of applicable crimes to specific corruption-related convictions. While this would apply to Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), she has not been in office long enough to qualify for a pension.
On the other hand, former Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Tony Gonzalez (R-TX) may still qualify for taxpayer-funded retirement benefits even amid serious allegations, underscoring the limitations to existing pension forfeiture laws.
How Congressional Pensions Work and How They Can Be Stripped
Members of Congress who serve at least five years become eligible for a federal pension under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), which replaced the more generous Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) in 1987. Benefits are based on years of service, the average of the highest three years of salary, and an accrual rate tied to when service began.
Following a series of high-profile cases where former members remained eligible for pensions even while serving prison sentences for corruption, Congress enacted pension forfeiture provisions through the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 and the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012. These laws apply upon conviction for a defined set of corruption-related offenses. The No CORRUPTION Act of 2024 closed a loophole that allowed pension payments to continue during the appeals. Allegations, ethics violations, or resigning from office do not affect pension eligibility on their own.
What This Means for Current Controversies
The indictment against Cherfilus-McCormick includes several charges that could trigger pension forfeiture if she were convicted. However, she has not served long enough to qualify for a pension.
By contrast, Swalwell and Gonzales have each served long enough to qualify for a congressional pension. However, since neither currently face charges that would trigger forfeiture, they would remain eligible for taxpayer-funded benefits.
Swalwell would be eligible for a starting pension of nearly $22,000 per year, accounting for a 10% spousal set-aside which is automatic unless the spouse signs a document of refusal. This also assumes that he took steps to maximize his starting pension amount while serving in office.
Swalwell is 45 years old and won’t be eligible to start collecting a pension until he is 62 in 2042. That will be the starting amount, and then going forward it is adjusted annually for inflation.
Gonzalez, who is the same age as Swalwell, was in office for just over 5 years, and will be eligible for a starting pension of just over $8,700 per year, also accounting for the automatic spousal set aside.
Closing the Gap in Pension Forfeiture Laws
The cases above, and the outrage triggered by the allegations, highlight a gap in current pension stripping laws. Following reports in the Washington Examiner and Center Square based on NTUF’s research that Swalwell would remain eligible for a pension, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced the No Pensions for Congressional Predators Act (S. 4343) to ensure that members convicted of certain abuse-related offenses lose their pensions.
The case of former Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) illustrates that lawmakers could also consider adding additional corruption-related offenses. Brown was sentenced to five years in jail for wire and tax fraud, conspiracy, lying to federal investigators, and other corruption charges. However, after successfully appealing the conviction over the improper removal of a juror, she later avoided a retrial and reached a plea agreement admitting guilt to a single count of corrupt interference with tax laws, allowing her roughly $71,000 starting annual pension to remain in place.
Conclusion
These cases highlight a clear gap between current law and public expectations for elected officials. While reforms cannot be applied retroactively, Congress can act to ensure future misconduct carries real consequences. Previous efforts like the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, and the No CORRUPTION Act of 2024 all passed with broad bipartisan support, demonstrating that Congress can come together to hold itself to a higher standard.