On The Hill

NO PAY FOR PREDATORS: Bipartisan Bill Would Bar Sex Criminals from Getting Federal Pensions in Wake of Swalwell Scandal

posted by Hannity Staff - 5.01.26

A rare bipartisan push is taking aim at one of Washington’s most sensitive perks: taxpayer-funded pensions.

Sens. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) are introducing legislation that would bar convicted sex criminals from collecting federal retirement benefits.

The proposal, titled the “No Taxpayer-Funded Pensions for Sex Criminals Act,” comes in the wake of allegations that forced former Rep. Eric Swalwell to resign last month.

Breaking Alerts
Don't miss the stories that matter.
Get Sean's breaking news alerts — free, direct to your inbox.

“There should be absolutely no room for the tolerance of egregious sex crimes,” Ernst said in a statement. “Allowing proven predators to continue collecting their pensions on the taxpayer’s dime only serves to greenlight unacceptable behavior.”

The legislation would revoke annuities for federal officials convicted of qualifying sex offenses, closing what sponsors say is a glaring loophole in current law.

Under existing rules, members of Congress become eligible for pensions after just five years of service. Benefits are paid out beginning at age 62, with average annual payouts exceeding $45,000 — and total costs to taxpayers reaching roughly $38 million each year.

Swalwell, first elected in 2012, remains eligible for a pension estimated at more than $22,000 annually once he reaches retirement age.

The California Democrat stepped down from Congress and ended his gubernatorial campaign in April after multiple women accused him of sexual harassment or abuse, including two who alleged rape. He has denied criminal wrongdoing but acknowledged “mistakes in judgment.”

Investigations are ongoing, with authorities in multiple jurisdictions reviewing the allegations.

The bipartisan nature of the bill underscores growing pressure in Washington to impose stricter consequences for misconduct — particularly when taxpayer dollars are involved.

Supporters argue the measure is a straightforward accountability fix. Critics are likely to raise questions about due process and how convictions would be defined under the law.

Still, the political momentum is clear. In an era of heightened scrutiny over ethics and conduct, lawmakers from both parties are signaling that public benefits should not follow those found guilty of serious crimes.

More Over at The New York Post: