Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., moved this week to strip taxpayer-funded pensions from former Reps. Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzales, both of whom resigned Tuesday amid allegations of sexual misconduct. Boebert shared a video on X Wednesday announcing she was "working on" efforts to ensure the former lawmakers lose their retirement benefits, a goal that current law makes far easier to promise than to deliver.

Both Swalwell, a California Democrat, and Gonzales, a Texas Republican, walked away from Congress rather than face formal proceedings. As the New York Post reported, Boebert told CNN reporter Manu Raju on the House steps earlier in the week that neither man should have been allowed to resign, and that the chamber should have held a vote to expel or censure them instead.

The Colorado Republican made clear she views the resignations as an escape hatch, not accountability. And the pension math gives her argument real teeth: both former members are eligible for federal retirement benefits, and each stands to collect roughly $22,000 a year for life once they reach age 62.

Boebert's case: taxpayers shouldn't fund a retirement for misconduct

In her video on X, Boebert aimed squarely at Swalwell. She said:

"Former Congressman Eric Swalwell abused his position of power in Congress to assault and victimize women. Now as things stand, taxpayers will be sending him tens of thousands of dollars every year for the rest of his life. This is totally unacceptable."

Boebert did not limit her argument to one party. Gonzales, a fellow Republican, drew the same treatment. That bipartisan targeting lends her push a degree of credibility that pure partisan sniping would not. She told Raju she wanted Congress to explore new mechanisms, censure with pension-stripping teeth, or some other procedural route, to ensure members cannot simply resign their way out of consequences.

Her comments to the CNN reporter were blunt. Boebert said she thought Congress needed to "look into ways to censure, with other aspects to say you can't have your pension, you can't leave here with all your taxpayer-funded benefits after such shameful acts that cause you to bow out and resign from Congress."

Fox News Digital reached out to Boebert for further details on her plan. Whether she responded was not reported.

The legal wall standing in the way

Boebert's instinct may resonate with taxpayers, but the law is not on her side, at least not yet. Under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and the older Civil Service Retirement System, any member who has served at least five years of federal service qualifies for retirement benefits. Both Swalwell and Gonzales meet that threshold.

Neither man can access his pension until age 62. But once they do, the checks start, roughly $22,000 a year, paid for life. That money comes from taxpayers regardless of why the member left office.

Here is the catch that makes Boebert's effort a steep climb: members of Congress do not automatically lose their pension benefits based on a censure or expulsion vote. Under existing federal statutes, including the HISS Act and the STOCK Act of 2012, a member forfeits pension benefits only if convicted of crimes committed while serving in Congress. Resignation alone does not trigger forfeiture. Neither does an ethics investigation, a censure resolution, or even an expulsion vote.

That legal framework means Boebert would likely need new legislation to accomplish what she described. And passing pension-stripping legislation through a narrowly divided House is no small task, as recent intra-party fights over spending and earmarks have shown.

Expulsion: rare, difficult, and now moot

Boebert argued that Swalwell and Gonzales should have faced an expulsion vote before they had the chance to resign. But expulsion is extraordinarily rare. Only six members of the House of Representatives have ever been successfully expelled in the chamber's entire history.

An expulsion vote can be triggered by a member engaging in "disorderly conduct," but the two-thirds threshold required makes it one of the hardest actions the House can take. And even if the House had expelled both men, that alone would not have stripped their pensions under current law. The pension forfeiture mechanism is tied to criminal conviction, not to the manner of departure.

That gap between what voters expect and what the law actually allows is the core of the problem Boebert is trying to highlight. A congressman can face serious allegations, resign before any formal proceeding, and still collect a taxpayer-funded pension for decades. The system, as currently written, treats resignation as a clean exit.

The broader pattern of lawmakers facing severe fallout and pressure from within their own party has become a recurring feature of this Congress, and the question of consequences, real consequences, not just public shaming, keeps coming up short.

A bipartisan problem demands a bipartisan fix

What makes Boebert's push notable is that she did not spare her own side. Gonzales is a Republican. Swalwell is a Democrat. She named both. That matters, because pension reform efforts in Congress tend to die when they become purely partisan weapons. By targeting a member of her own party, Boebert removed the easiest objection critics could raise.

The Republican conference has not been shy about internal discipline in recent months. From public rebukes of prominent figures to fights over spending strategy, the GOP has shown a willingness, sometimes messy, sometimes productive, to hold its own members accountable.

Whether that willingness extends to changing federal pension law remains an open question. The deep divisions within the House Republican conference on spending and governance have made even routine legislation a grind. A bill to strip pensions from resigned members, one that would need to navigate committee markups, floor votes, and likely Senate resistance, faces long odds without significant bipartisan buy-in.

Still, the underlying principle is straightforward. Most Americans working in the private sector do not get a guaranteed annual payout for life after leaving a job under a cloud of misconduct allegations. The idea that members of Congress enjoy protections that ordinary workers do not is the kind of two-tier system that erodes public trust.

Boebert has not yet detailed the specific legislative vehicle she intends to use. The gap between a social media video and a bill with co-sponsors is wide. But the argument she is making, that taxpayers should not be forced to fund the retirements of lawmakers who resign in disgrace, is one that cuts across the usual partisan fault lines in ways that few issues do.

The real test ahead

The resignations of Swalwell and Gonzales are already done. No expulsion vote will happen. No censure resolution will land. The window for those remedies closed the moment both men walked out the door.

What remains is the forward-looking question: will Congress change the rules so that the next member who resigns under similar circumstances does not collect a taxpayer-funded pension? Or will this moment pass the way so many others have, with strong words, a few news cycles, and no structural change?

Boebert has put herself on record. The facts are plain enough. Two former congressmen left office amid serious allegations. Both remain eligible for roughly $22,000 a year in retirement benefits starting at age 62. Current law offers no mechanism to stop those payments absent a criminal conviction.

If that strikes taxpayers as a raw deal, it should. The question is whether anyone in Congress has the votes, and the staying power, to fix it.