Congress weaponizes ethics to remove rival from Intelligence Committee
H.Res. 888 — Censuring and condemning Delegate Stacey Plaskett and removing her from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for conduct that reflects discreditably on the House of Representatives for colluding with convicted felony sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing. · Filed by Ralph Norman (R-SC) · 21 cosponsors · Introduced Nov 18, 2025 · Failed
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This resolution seeks to censure (formally condemn) Delegate Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands and remove her from the House Intelligence Committee, alleging she coordinated her questioning during a 2019 congressional hearing with Jeffrey Epstein via text message while he was under federal investigation for sex trafficking. The resolution claims Epstein coached her on lines of questioning and congratulated her afterward, and argues this coordination with a convicted sex offender undermines her fitness to serve on the Intelligence Committee.
Why we flagged it
This is a political censure resolution targeting a specific member, not substantive legislation. It functions as a formal accusation and removal mechanism, driven by partisan sponsors (21 Republican cosponsors, no Democratic support evident), and uses inflammatory language ('colluding,' 'secretly collaborating') that frames contested facts as established misconduct.
What the text implies
- If passed, this would set a precedent for using censure resolutions as a partisan tool to remove members from committees based on contested allegations, potentially normalizing the weaponization of ethics procedures.
- The resolution directs the Ethics Committee to investigate, but the censure language pre-judges the outcome by stating facts as established ('coordinated,' 'coached,' 'congratulated') rather than alleged, potentially prejudicing any subsequent investigation.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The resolution raises legitimate concerns about a member's judgment and potential coordination with a convicted sex offender during official proceedings, which could erode public trust in Congress. However, the resolution itself is a political weapon—a one-sided accusation without due process, presented as fact rather than allegation, and the underlying factual claims (the nature and extent of coordination, Plaskett's intent, the significance of the contact) are contested and not independently v