Rep. Jim Costa, a longtime California Democrat from Fresno, was investigated in 2023 after a former House staffer filed a complaint alleging he made unwanted advances toward her and behaved inappropriately toward another young woman, both interns on Capitol Hill. The Office of Congressional Conduct and the House Ethics Committee ultimately dismissed the case, keeping the matter out of public view until the New York Post reported on the probe and the details behind it.

Costa's office said the congressman "fully cooperated" with the review and that the Ethics Committee unanimously voted to dismiss. But the allegations themselves, involving a 67-year-old congressman, a 22-year-old intern, dancing, dinner invitations, and career pressure, paint a picture that taxpayers and voters in California's Central Valley deserve to see in full.

The complaint was filed in early 2023 by a former House Democratic staffer who said Costa first approached her in February 2020, when she was a 22-year-old intern working for a different lawmaker. The encounter took place at an event hosted by a California nonprofit. She told investigators Costa asked her to dance. She declined. He persisted.

What the first intern alleged

The woman, who now works as a lobbyist, described the interaction to NOTUS, the outlet that first reported the probe. She said Costa kept pressing her to dance even after she turned him down.

"I was like, 'I've already danced.' He's like, 'Well, I didn't dance with you.'"

She said the encounter grew physically uncomfortable. At one point, she alleged, Costa leaned into her repeatedly in what she described as a checked-bag area at the event.

"Every time I leaned back, it seemed like he got farther forward. So I was grateful that I could do a back bend. It was a very uncomfortable situation."

She said Costa then offered to help with her congressional career, gave her his personal phone number, and suggested dinner. She told investigators she interpreted the overture as sexual, not professional.

"He just said 'I would love to help you with your career. Let's get dinner.' Which when it comes from a powerful man, does not mean I want to help you."

The next day, she alleged, she bumped into Costa again. He asked why she had not texted him and whether she had a boyfriend. She later sent her resume to his chief of staff, not because she wanted a job, she said, but because she feared the consequences of refusing.

"if I didn't do these things, my career would be ruined."

That dynamic, a young woman early in her career feeling compelled to comply with a senior lawmaker's requests, is exactly the kind of power imbalance that congressional ethics rules are supposed to address. Whether the Ethics Committee weighed it seriously or simply cleared a colleague is a question the public cannot answer, because the dismissal kept the entire matter sealed.

A second intern, a year later

The complaint did not stop with the 2020 incident. The same woman alleged she witnessed Costa behave similarly toward another female intern, described as a Senate intern, at an event hosted by the same California nonprofit roughly a year later, in December 2021.

She described the scene to NOTUS in vivid terms, saying Costa asked the second intern to dance and that the young woman reluctantly agreed.

"She very uncomfortably and awkwardly said yes. At which point he started spinning her around, like, touching, dancing."

The first woman said people stared. Some took photos. She told NOTUS she coordinated with a male staffer to intervene.

"Everyone was staring. A lot of people were taking photos. At which point, I looked at [the male staffer] and said, you go grab her hand and I will grab his."

The male staffer told NOTUS that the second intern later cried in the bathroom at the event. Costa, confronted about his behavior, was reportedly taken aback and left. The House Ethics Committee has opened probes into other members over similar allegations, but in Costa's case, the process ended quietly.

The Ethics Committee's quiet dismissal

Costa's office issued a statement saying the congressman takes ethics complaints seriously and cooperated fully. The office said the Office of Congressional Compliance, referred to elsewhere as the Office of Congressional Conduct, recommended dismissal, and the Ethics Committee unanimously agreed.

Breitbart reported that under House rules, investigations by the Office of Congressional Conduct must be made public unless both the OCC and the Ethics Committee move to dismiss. Because both bodies dismissed the Costa case, the investigation was never disclosed through the usual process. That procedural quirk kept voters in the dark.

Costa's office said the facts "speak for themselves." What those facts are, beyond the congressman's denial and the committee's silence, remains unclear. NOTUS reviewed texts related to the allegations, but the specific content of those messages has not been made public.

The open questions are significant. What evidence did ethics officials review? What standard did they apply? Did they interview the second intern or the male staffer who witnessed the bathroom aftermath? None of that is known. The committee's unanimous vote to dismiss may reflect genuine innocence, or it may reflect the institutional reluctance that has defined congressional self-policing for decades.

A pattern in Costa's past

The intern allegations are not the first time Costa's conduct has drawn scrutiny. In 1986, when Costa was a 34-year-old state assemblymember, Sacramento police reported that he and a 19-year-old prostitute, traveling in a state-leased car, approached another woman and allegedly agreed to pay her $50 for an act of prostitution.

Costa apologized at the time. "I made the mistake. I accept full responsibility for my error in judgment on last Saturday," he said. He survived the scandal politically and went on to serve in Congress, where he has represented Fresno for years.

That 1986 episode does not prove the 2020 and 2021 allegations are true. But it does establish that Costa has a documented history of conduct that, at minimum, raises serious questions about judgment around younger women, questions that a sealed ethics dismissal does nothing to resolve.

California Democrats and the accountability gap

Costa is not the only California Democrat to face allegations of sexual misconduct in recent years. Rep. Eric Swalwell resigned from Congress this year and dropped his leading bid for the governorship after multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct. Swalwell denied those claims. His campaign spending habits had already drawn scrutiny before the misconduct allegations surfaced.

The Swalwell case prompted broader conversations about whether Congress takes misconduct seriously. Some members, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal, have said they would vote to expel lawmakers facing sexual misconduct allegations. But expulsion votes are rare, and the more common outcome, a quiet dismissal, a sealed file, a congressman who keeps his seat, is exactly what happened with Costa.

The pattern is familiar to anyone who watches Capitol Hill. Allegations surface. The accused cooperates. The ethics process grinds forward behind closed doors. The case is dismissed. The public learns nothing until a reporter digs it up years later.

That is not accountability. It is insulation.

Congressional ethics investigations involving other lawmakers, including members who have publicly rejected calls to resign, at least play out where voters can see them. Costa's case was handled entirely in the dark, and would have stayed there if NOTUS had not reported it.

What voters still don't know

Costa's office did not respond to a question about his marital status. He appears to be single. That detail is peripheral to the core allegations, but it underscores how little the public actually knows about the man and the investigation.

The names of the two interns have not been made public. The California nonprofit that hosted both events has not been identified. The specific texts reviewed by NOTUS have not been published. The Ethics Committee's reasoning has not been released.

Costa's office says the facts speak for themselves. But the facts, as they stand, are incomplete, filtered through a process designed to protect sitting members of Congress, not the young staffers who work for them.

A 22-year-old intern said she felt pressured to comply with a powerful congressman's requests because she feared for her career. A second intern reportedly cried in a bathroom after an encounter with the same congressman. A male staffer witnessed it. A complaint was filed. And the institution responsible for holding its own members accountable said there was nothing to see.

When Congress polices itself, the verdict is almost always the same. The question is whether voters will accept it, or whether they'll demand something better than a sealed file and a shrug.