WCTB

Embattled Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., abruptly resigned Tuesday, just moments before a scheduled House Ethics Committee hearing that was expected to determine potential disciplinary action against her.

Cherfilus-McCormick’s resignation comes amid mounting pressure in Congress. Lawmakers had been considering a vote to expel her, a rare action requiring a two-thirds majority. While expulsion has historically been uncommon, recent precedent has made it more plausible even before a criminal conviction.

The case centers on allegations tied to Cherfilus-McCormick family’s company, Trinity Healthcare Services, which held a contract related to COVID-19 vaccination efforts. According to prosecutors, the company received a $5 million overpayment that was never returned. Instead, investigators allege the funds were routed through various accounts and partially used for campaign expenses.

The panel had been preparing to recommend penalties following its finding last month that Cherfilus-McCormick committed 25 ethics violations. These included improperly accepting campaign donations and mixing campaign funds with personal finances. Separately, a federal indictment alleges she misused $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, which prosecutors claim were funneled into her 2021 campaign. She has pleaded not guilty and maintains the situation stems from accounting mistakes.

In her resignation statement, Cherfilus-McCormick sharply criticized the proceedings, calling them a “witch hunt.” She argued the committee’s decision to move forward while her criminal case is pending denied her a fair chance to defend herself, adding that she would not allow her “due process rights to be trampled on” or her reputation damaged. Cherfilus-McCormick added that “rather than play these political games, I choose to step away so that I can devote my time to fighting for my neighbors in Florida’s 20th district. I hereby resign from the 119th Congress, effective immediately.”

With her departure, Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest announced the panel no longer had authority over the matter, emphasizing the investigation had been thorough and deliberate. Ranking Democrat Mark DeSaulnier acknowledged the difficulty of the situation, noting that no one involved took the outcome lightly.

Despite the accusations, Cherfilus-McCormick has consistently denied wrongdoing and said she looks forward to proving her innocence in court. Her trial is currently scheduled for 2027. Her exit marks the third congressional resignation in a short span, following the departures of two other lawmakers — Reps. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and Tony Gonzales, R-Texas — who were both under scrutiny for alleged sexual misconduct.

Editorial credit: Katherine Welles / Shutterstock.com

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says it is facing a Justice Department investigation that could lead to criminal charges, tied to its previous use of paid informants to monitor violent extremist groups.

In a statement released Tuesday, interim CEO Bryan Fair said the organization believes the inquiry centers on how it once compensated confidential sources to gather intelligence. Fair in a video posted to YouTube: “although we don’t know all the details, the focus appears to be on the SPLC’s prior use of paid confidential informants to gather credible intelligence on extremely violent groups. This use of informants was necessary because we are no stranger to threats of violence. In 1983, our offices were firebombed, and in the years since, there have been countless credible threats against our staff.”

Fair defended the practice, explaining that informants were used to track credible threats and protect both staff and the public. He noted that the organization frequently shared information with law enforcement, including the FBI, while keeping the identities of informants confidential for safety reasons. SPLC no longer uses paid informants but continues to emphasize their protection, he added.

Highlighting the group’s history, Fair pointed to past violence directed at the organization — including a 1983 firebombing — and said such risks made intelligence-gathering necessary. “There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives,” he said.

Founded in 1971 in Montgomery, Alabama, the SPLC is a nonprofit known for tracking hate groups and pursuing civil litigation against white supremacist organizations. Over the years, it has drawn criticism from Republicans and conservative groups, who argue it unfairly labels right-leaning organizations as extremist.

Fair suggested the investigation reflects broader political targeting. “We are therefore unsurprised to be the latest organization targeted by this administration. They have made no secret of who they want to protect and who they want to destroy,” he said. He also made clear the organization plans to push back, stating, “We will not be intimidated into silence or contrition, and we will not abandon our mission or the communities we serve.”

The probe is reportedly being handled by federal prosecutors in Alabama and could further intensify ongoing political disputes surrounding the SPLC’s work and its relationship with law enforcement. The Justice Department has not publicly commented on the matter.

Editorial credit: Mccallk69 / Shutterstock.com

FBI Director Kash Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick, accusing them of false claims about his conduct and leadership. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, targets a recent article that alleged Patel engaged in heavy drinking and had unexplained absences from his duties.

Patel strongly denied the accusations. In a statement, he said, “The Atlantic’s story is a lie,” adding that the publication had been warned about inaccuracies before going to print. “They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway,” he said.

In the 19-page complaint, Patel’s legal team describes the story as a “sweeping, malicious and defamatory hit piece,” arguing it relied on inaccurate and fabricated information attributed to unnamed sources. The article cited multiple current and former officials who claimed Patel’s behavior—including alleged excessive alcohol use and inconsistent presence at FBI facilities—had raised concerns and disrupted decision-making.

The lawsuit challenges 17 specific claims, including allegations that Patel drank to the point of visible intoxication, struggled to be awakened by his security team, and frequented social venues excessively. His attorneys argue the statements are “false and defamatory,” asserting they were either easily disproven or recklessly published.

One incident highlighted in the article involved Patel being temporarily locked out of an internal FBI system on April 10, which reportedly led him to believe he had been dismissed. His legal team acknowledges the login issue but describes it as a routine technical glitch that was quickly resolved, rejecting claims that he “panicked” or reacted irrationally. The suit also states the FBI had informed the publication in advance that any suggestion of his firing was unfounded.

Patel’s attorneys further maintain that he maintains a consistent presence at FBI headquarters and frequently visits field offices, disputing claims of absenteeism. They also deny that alcohol use has ever affected his performance or raised concerns within government circles.

Patel, who became FBI director in February 2025 following Senate confirmation, has faced scrutiny during his tenure, including attention over public appearances and internal personnel decisions. His lawsuit argues that the sources cited in the article were biased and lacked direct knowledge, describing them as individuals with “axes to grind.”

The lawsuit marks Patel’s second legal action tied to media coverage of his alleged behavior. He previously sued former FBI official and MSNBC analyst Frank Figliuzzi over remarks suggesting he spent more time in nightclubs than at work; that case remains unresolved.

In response to Patel’s lawsuit, The Atlantic posted a statement on X, stating, “We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit.”

Editorial credit: Consolidated News Photos / Shutterstock.com