Edwards Files OCC Complaint Against Ethics Committee Leaders for Circumventing Their Own Rules

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) announced that he has filed a formal submission with the Office of Congressional Conduct against House Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest and Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier, alleging that they circumvented the Committee’s own rules to recommend his censure.

“The Ethics Committee demanded that I be punished for supposedly violating the ‘letter and spirit’ of House rules while its own leaders treated those same rules as optional,”Edwards said.“There was nothing ethical about this process. They decided the outcome, adopted their report before receiving my response, denied me the procedures designed to test their accusations, and then publicly attacked my character based on findings that were never subjected to an adjudicatory hearing or the required clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.”

According to the complaint, the Committee voted to adopt its report on July 22, 2026, 12 days before receiving Edwards’ formal response. The Committee did not provide the draft report to Edwards’ counsel until July 31. By that point, its factual findings, credibility determinations, conclusions, and recommendation of censure had already been approved.

“Allowing me to append a response to a decision they had already made was not due process, and it shamelessly abandons the Committee's claim to 'provide a fair procedural framework for the conduct of the Committee's activities," Edwards said. “It was window dressing intended to create the appearance of fairness after the verdict had already been written.”

The complaint further alleges that the Committee relied upon a purported waiver to bypass the regular disciplinary process even though Edwards never executed a waiver satisfying Committee Rule 26(b). That rule expressly requires any waiver request to be in writing, signed by the respondent, and to identify the specific procedural rights or steps being waived. Edwards submitted and signed no such document.

“Chairman Guest and Ranking Member DeSaulnier cannot manufacture a waiver that does not exist,”Edwards said. “Nor can they use an oral communication with counsel as a license to discard their own rules. Rule 26(b) is unambiguous: a waiver must be written, signed by the respondent, and specific about the rights being waived. None of that occurred.”

Without a valid waiver, the Committee proceeded without establishing an Investigative Subcommittee, issuing a Statement of Alleged Violation, permitting an answer to specific charges, conducting an adjudicatory hearing, allowing Edwards to confront adverse testimony and introduce evidence, determining that any count was proved by clear and convincing evidence, or holding a sanction hearing.
The Committee’s report found no sexual activity, no explicit sexual proposition, no quid pro quo harassment, and no violation of federal sexual-harassment law. Nevertheless, it recommended censure based upon broad interpretations of the “letter and spirit” of House rules.

“They could not prove that I violated the law or identify sexual conduct,” Edwards said.“So they relied on insinuation, selective evidence, and subjective assumptions—while denying me the very process their rules establish for separating facts from accusations. They invoked the ‘spirit’ of the rules to condemn me while violating the unmistakable letter of their own.”

The OCC complaint asks for an independent investigation into whether Guest and DeSaulnier violated House standards by authorizing a sanction recommendation through a process the Committee’s rules did not permit. It also requests preservation and examination of all communications concerning the purported waiver, correction of the public record, appropriate disciplinary action, and a public apology for the grave and lasting damage inflicted upon Edwards’ character, dignity, reputation, family, and public service.

“No Member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, should be subjected to a process in which the investigators write the verdict first and hear the defense later,” Edwards said.“If the Ethics Committee cannot be trusted to follow its own rules when a Member’s reputation and dignity are at stake, then it has forfeited the moral authority to sit in judgment of anyone else. Chairman Guest and Ranking Member DeSaulnier must be held accountable.”

A copy of the OCC submission is available here.