A woman told the House Ethics Committee that Rep. Jimmy Gomez sexually assaulted her, and her attorneys are publicly disputing the California Democrat's claim that his conduct was consensual. The bipartisan committee announced Monday it was investigating Gomez for allegedly engaging in inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer.
Gomez acknowledged in a written statement Monday that he "made personal mistakes outside my marriage" and maintained that his "actions were consensual in nature." He said he was "ready to cooperate with the Ethics Committee inquiry and provide it with whatever information it might need" and would offer no further public comment "out of respect for my family and the ongoing process."
Attorneys Lisa J. Banks and Sarah E. Nesbitt, who represent the unnamed woman, rejected that framing directly. "Contrary to Representative Gomez's assertion in his statement, his actions were not 'consensual in nature' with respect to our client," the attorneys said in a statement. "We fully expect that the House Committee on Ethics will come to the same conclusion in its investigation."
Banks and Nesbitt said their client was among the women interviewed by the Ethics Committee about her experience of sexual harassment and assault by Gomez. They did not identify her by name.
House Democratic leadership issued a joint statement Wednesday calling the allegations "serious and disturbing." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar jointly called on the Ethics Committee to conduct a thorough and swift investigation.
Democratic Women's Caucus Chair Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico and Vice Chairs Emilia Sykes of Ohio and Hillary Scholten of Michigan escalated the pressure, specifically citing the 60-day blackout period that bars the Ethics Committee from releasing new investigation findings in the run-up to an election. They called on the committee to update the public on the status of its investigation before that window closes and said that if the allegations are substantiated, the consequences must be "meaningful."
The 60-day blackout provision is a standing Ethics Committee rule designed to prevent the panel from influencing elections. But in a case where a sitting member faces allegations of sexual assault, that rule creates a hard deadline: the committee must act or go silent for roughly two months before voters go to the polls.
Bipartisan women members of Congress are also pressing the panel to move faster. The cross-aisle pressure is notable given how rarely members of opposing parties align publicly on internal House conduct matters.
The Ethics Committee, in its Monday announcement of the probe, stated that no additional public comment would be made on the investigation except as provided under committee rules — a standard posture the panel takes in active inquiries.
The investigation is unfolding as the full House prepares to take up legislation that would overhaul congressional ethics rules. The proposed reforms include a ban on sexual relationships between lawmakers and any congressional staffer — not just those who work directly under the member's supervision. Current House rules prohibit members from having sexual relationships only with staffers in their own office, a gap the legislation would close.
Gomez represents California's 34th Congressional District, which covers parts of Los Angeles. He has served in the House since 2017. His office had not responded to requests for comment on the specific assault allegation as of the time this report was filed.
The Ethics Committee panel is bipartisan by design: House rules require equal representation from both parties on the committee, meaning any formal action against Gomez would require votes from Republican and Democratic members alike. That structure is intended to insulate the panel from partisan pressure, though it also means investigations can stall when members are reluctant to act against a colleague.
The timeline is now the central variable. If the committee does not release findings before the 60-day blackout takes effect, the investigation results — whatever they are — will not be public before Election Day. Democratic Women's Caucus leaders made clear they view that outcome as unacceptable given the nature of the allegations.
