Progressive Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) caused quite a stir -- and violated House ethics rules -- when she attended the 2021 Met Gala charity event in a custom-made "Tax the Rich" gown, and she is still dealing with the fallout of her unethical actions four years later.

In addition to recently being found again by the House Committee on Ethics to have impermissibly received attire-related gifts, the congresswoman known as AOC was also busted for bending the applicable ethics rules for her "spouse," the Daily Mail reported.

The committee called out the representative for trying to have it both ways for her longtime unmarried partner, Riley Roberts, in that he counts as her "spouse" when it comes to gift exemptions and other congressional perks, but not when it comes to the House's financial disclosure requirements.

Is Ocasio-Cortez's unmarried partner her "spouse"?

The Washington Free Beacon was the first to report that the House Ethics Committee "rebuked" Rep. Ocasio-Cortez in a July report about the apparent double standard she has applied to whether her longtime partner and fiancé, Roberts, is or isn't her "spouse."

In a May 16 letter in advance of the committee's recent adverse findings about the congresswoman, her attorney, David Mitrani, attempted to argue against those findings, including that his client had impermissibly accepted the gift of free admission for Roberts to the 2021 Met Gala, for which tickets for most attendees to the charitable fundraiser were sold for $35,000.

Mitrani acknowledged that the definition of a "spouse" to a member of Congress differed under various laws and House rules, but asserted that the label was applicable to Roberts in terms of his free admission to the Met Gala because the couple had lived together since 2016, he was provided with a "spouse pin" when she entered Congress in 2019 -- which grants him certain benefits and access to non-public areas of the Capitol -- and was considered to be a "spouse" under federal campaign finance laws.

"So, at the time in September of 2021, left with multiple sets of law with multiple meanings for the same word ('spouse') -- which should the Congresswoman have followed in the moment?" the lawyer wrote. "The Congresswoman chose to follow campaign finance laws where definitions are commonly used throughout to guide the Committee’s guidance (especially under personal use rules), opposed to definitions that were inapplicable in the Committee’s rules on other topics."

"This was and is a reasonable and logical conclusion to make, and the Committee should not so brazenly apply guidance limited to other sets of rules in other contexts," Mitrani added. "From this, the Committee should not find that the Congresswoman impermissibly accepted a gift of Mr. Roberts’ admission to the 2021 Met Gala."

Committee ruled Roberts "did not fit the definition of a 'spouse'"

According to the Free Beacon, Mitrani's argument proved to be of no avail, as the House Ethics Committee's July report did indeed find that, among other violations, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez had impermissibly accepted the gift of free admission to the 2021 Met Gala for Roberts, for which she was ordered to make a $250 contribution to the Met to cover the cost of Roberts' meal at that event.

The Committee observed that, per the House Ethics Manual, a member's "spouse" is defined as "someone to whom you are legally married," which would not apply to the congresswoman's unmarried partner, and that Ocasio-Cortez had previously been informed of that distinction.

The report further chastised her for opting to follow campaign finance guidance instead of House rules, and said, "If counsel was unsure what guidance applied to the situation, counsel (or the congresswoman herself) should have contacted the Committee for advice, rather than 'choosing' which law to apply," at which point the Committee would have "informed" them that "Roberts did not fit the definition of a 'spouse' for purposes of the Charitable Events Exception."

Trying to enjoy the benefits without abiding by the requirements

Even more damning than that, however, was a footnote in the Committee's report that highlighted how Rep. Ocasio-Cortez was exploiting the purported spousal status of Roberts when it came to receiving benefits and perks, but not with the other requirements that apply to a member's married partner, such as full disclosure of his employment, income, assets, debt, stocks, and other financial holdings.

"The Committee also found evidence that Representative Ocasio-Cortez listed Mr. Roberts as her 'spouse' on paperwork filed with the House relating to privately sponsored travel, although the two were not legally married at the time of the gifted travel," the footnote stated. "It is not clear whether these misstatements were made on the advice of counsel; indeed, counsel acknowledged in his May 16, 2025, letter that the Travel Regulations provide that Mr. Roberts was not a 'relative' under the applicable regulations."

The footnote added, "The Committee further notes that at the same time Representative Ocasio-Cortez was seeking to take advantage of exceptions to the Gift Rule only applicable to spouses and/or certain relatives, she was not disclosing Mr. Roberts’ financial interests as is required of Members who are legally married."