Sexual harassment allegations have been amplified online by Democrat-aligned politicos targeting Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., one of the leading Democratic candidates in California’s gubernatorial race.

Amid repeated denials and cease-and-desist letters sent by Swalwell’s lawyer, one of the alleged victims shared her story publicly for the first time, accusing Swalwell of taking advantage of her while she was intoxicated on multiple occasions, according to a bombshell report published by the San Francisco Chronicle Friday. The alleged victim’s story also included claims that Swalwell pressured her to send naked pictures of herself and sent sexually explicit photos of his own, pulled out his private parts while driving in a car with her and requested she perform oral sex on him, among other incidents the victim said impacted how Swalwell treated her professionally.

The unnamed female accuser, who spoke to the San Francisco Chronicle, reportedly worked for Swalwell for about two years and revealed that he started pursuing her, despite being married, shortly after she was hired as a young 21-year-old staffer in his district office. On multiple occasions, the young staffer recalls blacking out from alcohol consumption, before waking up naked in Swalwell’s hotel bed with signs she had engaged in intercourse. Swalwell allegedly distanced himself after the incident, and their relationship faded, before reuniting when she no longer worked for him, during which another incident allegedly took place. 

DEM SENATOR RIPPED FOR ‘SMEAR’ OF FEMALE ACTIVIST ADVOCATING FOR SWALWELL’S ACCUSERS 

Representative Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., is running for governor of California in a crowded field of Democratic PArty hopefuls.  (John Lamparski/Getty Images)

“Eric Swalwell should immediately drop out,” Democratic strategist Bhavik Lathia said after the San Francisco Chronicle’s report dropped. “It is damning.” 

Former San Jose Mayor and fellow Democratic Party gubernatorial candidate in California, Matt Mahan, also called on Swalwell to “drop out.”

“To the survivor who risked everything to come forward – I believe you,” Mahan said. “To the Democratic Party – you’d better hold him accountable.”

 “If we don’t, we have no credibility asking anyone else to do the same,” he continued.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., a longtime friend of Swalwell who faced backlash earlier this week for trying to discredit allegations against the California Democrat, posted on Friday that he “regret[s] having come to his defense on social media prior to knowing all the information. I am equally as shocked and upset about what has transpired.”

“What is described is indefensible. Women who come forward with accounts like this deserve to be heard with respect, not questioned or dismissed,” Gallego said. “I am withdrawing my endorsement of Congressman Swalwell, effective immediately.”

Swalwell’s team did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment, but he recently said during a press gaggle that the allegations are “false,” including allegations that Swalwell previously pressured female staffers to sign non-disclosure agreements so they cannot speak out, or that he was involved in an alleged hush money settlement. 

“It’s false. And also some of the allegations I’ve seen, which is that we’ve had NDAs in the office – never. There’s never been an allegation, and there’s never been a settlement,” Swalwell insisted this week.

“This false, outrageous rumor is being spread 27 days before an election begins by flailing opponents who have sadly teamed up with MAGA conspiracy theorists because they know Eric Swalwell is the frontrunner in this race,” Micah Beasley, a spokesperson for Swalwell, also said on Tuesday.

Cheyenne Hunt, a former Capitol Hill staffer who is currently a nonprofit director at the group Gen-Z for Change, is among the voices acting as a proxy for alleged Swalwell accusers and has been helping amplify their stories. On Friday, she blasted Swalwell for “tak[ing] a page out of the Trump playbook by attempting to silence women,” with cease-and-desist letters he allegedly sent out late Thursday night ahead of the San Francisco Chronicle’s report sharing a first-hand account from one of Swalwell’s alleged accusers. 

Then-Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., seen pictured with Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and their wives during a 2021 trip to Qatar, which was funded by the U.S.-Qatar Business Council. (FOX NEWS)

Fox News Digital has not independently verified the allegations from the report.

The alleged victim, who began working for Swalwell during his short-lived presidential campaign in 2019, said a married Swalwell, who was 38, began pursuing her, including through messages on Snapchat, which allows users to send photos that subsequently disappear after someone has looked at them. She claimed the relationship rapidly progressed as Swalwell began asking for pictures of her face, then her naked body and eventually her genitalia. When messaging, the victim alleged Swalwell would sometimes send shirtless selfies or other images of his own genitalia.

SWALWELL THREATENS FBI WITH LEGAL ACTION AS PATEL REPORTEDLY WEIGHS ‘FANG FANG’ FILES RELEASE

Swalwell then allegedly tried to kiss the victim in her car when she drove him home from a donor meeting one night, and on another occasion he allegedly pulled out his penis while in the vehicle and asked her to perform oral sex on him. She admitted to doing so in a parking lot, but soon stopped out of fear someone might see them.  

Meanwhile, in September 2019, the alleged victim, who was then working in Swalwell’s Castro Valley district office, reportedly said Swalwell invited her out for dinner and drinks when she drank too much and blacked out. She claimed to have not even remembered leaving the restaurant, but was woken up in Swalwell’s hotel room the next day with vaginal soreness indicative of sexual intercourse. She also reportedly had a brief memory of Swalwell sucking her toes.

After the September 2019 incident at Swalwell’s hotel, the victim said the pair’s relationship faded as Swalwell distanced himself from her and began treating her more formally during public interactions. She eventually stopped working for Swalwell, but stayed in politics and noted Swalwell would occasionally remain in touch with her, including reaching out when she was looking for a job. 

However, she claimed that five years later, while attending an April 2024 charity event Swalwell was being honored at, the pair reunited. She was not working for Swalwell at this later date, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The woman indicated that she and Swalwell went out for drinks after the event, during which, once again, she became inebriated and could only remember bits and pieces about the night. 

“Even though he had hurt me in the past, I felt like he was someone I could trust,” the alleged victim said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. “Because we shared this secret together, it pulled me closer to him.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) speaks during a House Judiciary Committee hearing with FBI Director Kash Patel in the Rayburn House Office Building on Sept. 17, 2025.  (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

According to the San Francisco Chronicle’s reporting on the alleged victim’s experiences, one moment she did remember from the night was pushing Swalwell away and telling him “no” as he allegedly tried to force her to have sex with him. The woman reportedly texted a friend after the incident telling her she had been sexually assaulted by Swalwell. Other messages reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle reportedly showed the victim indicating she had “blacked out” but “woke up once during it and even told him to stop at one point.”

“This happened one other time when I was working with him, but I convinced myself I was an equal party in it even though same pattern: I blacked out and he had sex with me,” the alleged victim wrote, referring to the 2019 incident, according to the San Francisco Chronicle’s reporting.

ERIC SWALWELL CAMPAIGN SETS OFF ALARM BELLS AFTER ACCEPTING $25K DONATION FROM CCP-TIED LAWYER: ‘OUTRAGEOUS’ 

The outlet also indicated it spoke with the friend the victim was allegedly texting, as well as the woman’s then-boyfriend who she reportedly told about the assault the next day. The boyfriend reportedly encouraged her to report Swalwell at the time. 

However, she did not go to the authorities at the time, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, because she was afraid she would not be believed. Medical records reportedly showed she did obtain a pregnancy and STD test a week following the incident.

Swalwell subsequently messaged the alleged victim after the 2024 incident and told her not to tell anyone about their interaction that night, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. “He even sent me a message: you said you didn’t remember anything last time i hope you do now,” the alleged victim reportedly texted her friend three days after the incident. “And i said: yeah I’m trying to forget thanks.” 

“He was sending messages like we just had a romantic encounter like he knows what he’s doing,” the alleged victim also allegedly wrote to her friend at the time. “He was gaslighting me into thinking it was consensual.”

Swalwell’s alleged victim began talking to the San Francisco news outlet roughly a month ago, as she was weighing whether to go public with her allegations as they began anonymously surfacing online. 

The victim was confused how the rumors began, considering she only told family and a small group of friends about the incident. The victim reportedly called the Swalwell campaign in March to see if her name had surfaced among the rumored victims, to which one of Swalwell’s staffers reportedly asked her to vouch for Swalwell. 

“He was so confident that I would stay silent that he wasn’t scared,” she said of Swalwell.

“I have no skin in the game of who becomes governor of California, but I feel people have a right to know whether the person who leads a state that is a safe haven for so many women actually treats women with dignity and will protect their rights,” continued the woman, who still works on Capitol Hill, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. “No one protected me from him, and so I have to protect the other young women like me who aspire to work in this field and he could prey upon.”

From left, Xavier Becerra, Steve Hilton, Matt Mahan, Tom Steyer, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee stand on the stage during the California gubernatorial candidate debate Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Laure Andrillon)

Late Thursday night, Swalwell’s attorney, Elias Dabaie, sent a cease-and-desist letter that Hunt, one of the individuals amplifying Swalwell’s accuser’s claims, argues is an effort to intimidate those trying to speak up about Swalwell’s history with women. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 

“Today we learned [Swalwell] is intimidating survivors, serving cease and desist letters on those coming forward with stories of sexual harassment and abuse. He sent this threat in the dead of night — another attempt to delay the truth,” Hunt wrote on social media, attaching a copy of the first letter of the cease and desist letter she claimed to have obtained.

“This is what it looks like when powerful men get caught,” Hunt continued. “These cease and desists are a disgusting abuse of power against brave women who are courageously working together to share their stories. It begs the question: if Swalwell has done nothing wrong, as his campaign claims, why not let the women tell their stories in the light of day? Our team remains steadfast. We will not relent. The women will not recant.”

The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that it had confirmed the authenticity of the letter. Fox News Digital reached out to the attorney who sent the letter to confirm the authenticity of the letter independently, but did not immediately receive a response. 

Following the San Francisco Chronicle’s report Friday, CNN published a separate report indicating three other women they had spoken to also alleged various kinds of sexual misconduct by the Democratic congressman – including Swalwell sending them unsolicited explicit messages or nude photos.

The First Nations Leadership Council is speaking out against the B.C. government’s proposal to suspend key provisions of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), calling it a unilateral betrayal and an abandonment of the province’s commitment to principled reconciliation, as well as serving to create a climate of uncertainty.

“This is an historical moment for First Nations and we will not back down,” Robert Phillips, First Nations Summit Political Executive, said at a press conference on Friday.

“But we will not tolerate misinformation, prejudice, racism that our First Nations are experiencing right now. And the premier is only adding fuel to the fire.”

The Act requires B.C. to align its laws with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Late last year, a B.C. Court of Appeal decision determined that DRIPA is legally enforceable, meaning laws that don’t align with it can be struck down in court.

In response, Premier David Eby proposed amendments to the Act but, following pushback from First Nations leaders, he’s instead proposing a three-year pause on key sections of the Act as the province deals with the fallout from last year’s court rulings.

2:05
BC proposes suspending parts of DRIPA

On Friday, First Nations leaders repeated that DRIPA is not the problem.

Get breaking National news

Get breaking Canada news delivered to your inbox as it happens so you won’t miss a trending story.

“They started by saying, because of the Cowichan Nation decision, they need to amend the legislation,” Laxele’wuts’aat Huy’wu’qw (Chief) Shana Thomas said.

“They talked about threats to private land. And even though the Cowichan Nation Chiefs sent out a joint statement with the premier, assuring the public that the Cowichan Nation was not seeking to dispossess any individuals of private land, the fear-mongering persists.”

Eby was also heavily criticized.

“I think the problem is Premier Eby himself and I think the NDP has a colossal leadership problem,” ʔaʔsiwɬ Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, said.

In response, Eby said that the reality is that British Columbia was settled largely without treaty.

“First Nations rights and title exist, and any government has to grapple with those issues,” he said. “We want to do this work to mitigate the risk in the least invasive way possible.”

Eby has said the bill to suspend parts of DRIPA will be a confidence vote, meaning the government could fall if it doesn’t pass.

2:21
Forest industry conference deals with DRIPA controversy

The proposed changes to DRIPA are set to be introduced in the House later next week when it resumes sitting.

All eyes will be on Joan Phillip, who is a Vancouver MLA and is married to Phillip.

He said he doesn’t speak for his wife, but added that his wife does not support the suspension.

“She does not support any tinkering or meddling with DRIPA,” Phillip said.

“Alongside myself, our family, we celebrated DRIPA in 2019. As for the other MLAs, they need to vote their conscience.”

Eby said there is a wide diversity of voices and views in the BC NDP caucus.

“We are stable. We are focused, and we are committed to delivering for British Columbians,” Eby said.

“And Joan is no exception. And of course, I will always defer to Joan to speak for Joan’s own community and for herself.”

— WGlith files from Global News’ Andrea Macpherson and Keith Baldrey

&copy 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

The Court of International Trade on Friday appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump‘s use of a little-known emergency trade law to justify his sweeping, 10% global tariffs — teeing up a familiar, if technically new, legal fight focused on when and how a sitting president can act to unilaterally impose steep import fees on most U.S. trading partners.

During nearly two hours of arguments, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade grappled with Trump’s use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — an emergency provision designed to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments problems — and its applicability in today’s economy.

Under Section 122, a president has the authority to unilaterally impose import fees of up to 15% on U.S. trading partners for a period of 150 days, to respond to large and serious “balance of payments deficits,” or instances that risk immediately depreciating the power of the dollar.  

Arguments before the court hinged on interpretation of the “balance of payments deficits” phrase, and whether the persistent U.S. trade deficits cited by Trump in invoking Section 122 aligned with the kind of crisis that Congress had envisioned when it passed the trade law in the mid-1970s. 

TRUMP WARNS SUPREME COURT TARIFF SHOWDOWN IS ‘LIFE OR DEATH’ FOR AMERICA

A protester holds a sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Members of the three-judge panel appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments, and questioned whether Congress intended the statute to apply to specific instances of international currency pressures, rather than long-running trade imbalances.

“Are you really saying that a large trade deficit alone is sufficient?” the judge asked Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate, adding, “I don’t think it is, and I think Congress didn’t think it is.”

Congress, Shumate argued, had provided presidents with broad discretion to assess economic conditions, and to identify what “balance of power” deficits warrant emergency intervention. 

Shumate also ticked through a list of other economic indicators Trump cited in his proclamation — including the current account deficit, and the “net international investment” position, among other things.

“The important point,” Shumate said, “is that Congress provided the president [with] discretion.”

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS 5 TRUMP TARIFF EXECUTIVE ORDERS 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a “Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement event. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The arguments come weeks after a group of 24 attorneys general sued the administration over Trump’s use of Section 122, arguing that the move was an illegal attempt to “sidestep” the Supreme Court’s ruling in February that blocked Trump’s use of an emergency economic powers law to unilaterally impose his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs. 

Shumate said Friday that both authorities — IEEPA and Section 122 — were available to Trump, and told the court that Trump could have invoked Section 122 earlier.

Lawyers for the challenges told the court Friday that upholding the administration’s broader view of the law would effectively turn Section 122 into an all-purpose trade weapon. 

TRUMP TARIFF PLAN FACES UNCERTAIN FUTURE AS COURT BATTLES INTENSIFY

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on March 28, 2025, in New York City.  (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer representing one set of challengers in Friday’s case, said the government’s theory was “very, very, very broad,” adding that it could allow the president to act “at any point, at any moment that he wants, forever.”

Trump is the first president to attempt to use both IEEPA and Section 122 to unilaterally impose tariffs. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

The case is seen broadly as one that could help define the outer bounds of presidential tariff authority.

If nothing else, the novelty of both cases, and the skepticism on display by the trade court Friday suggests the new Section 122 tariffs might follow a legal fight that is similar to his first.

Congressional Democrats want President Donald Trump ousted through extraordinary measures, despite previously dismissing similar calls targeting former President Joe Biden.

More than 50 Democratic lawmakers have called on Trump’s Cabinet to effectively depose him using the 25th Amendment, arguing that the president is unfit to serve over his comments and actions regarding Iran. Their demands were sparked by his social media declaration that a “whole civilization will die” unless the Iranian government agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

“I certainly think the president should be removed,” Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said. “I mean, he’s unfit for office. I think the 25th Amendment, and if not, then impeachment.”

But less than two years ago, Republicans made the same argument against Biden that Democrats ignored.

SENATE DEM ACCUSES TRUMP OF BEING ‘UNFIT FOR OFFICE,’ JOINS GROWING CALL TO IMPEACH, OUST PRESIDENT

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., at the time wrote a letter to then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling for him, along with Vice President Kamala Harris, to invoke the 25th Amendment.

“If President Biden is unwilling to resign, for the sake of our great nation, you must do your duty to relieve him of his constitutional powers and duties,” Schmitt wrote.

Congressional Democrats want President Donald Trump ousted through extraordinary measures, despite previously dismissing similar calls targeting former President Joe Biden. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo)

Now, only a small group of Senate Democrats have made the case for Trump’s ouster, while most of the enthusiasm has come from the House.

Democrats’ calls to remove Trump through impeachment and conviction or the 25th Amendment cannot happen without widespread GOP support. House Democratic leadership, however, continues to provide a platform for those discussions.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, D-Md., will hold a caucus-wide briefing on the workings of the 25th Amendment Friday afternoon.

EX-TRUMP ALLY MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE JOINS LEFT-WING CALLS FOR THE 25TH AMENDMENT AS IRAN DEADLINE NEARS

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not call for the 25th Amendment to be invoked against Biden. Pelosi did, however, renew her call to see Trump ousted through that process in recent days.  (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)

In the summer of 2024, Republicans demanded that Biden be removed from office after a disastrous debate performance against Trump and following a report from former Special Counsel Robert Hur that called into question the then-president’s cognitive ability and handling of classified documents.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at the time, “There’s a lot of people asking about the 25th Amendment, invoking the 25th Amendment right now, because this is an alarming situation.”

GOP INFIGHTING REPLACES CLASH WITH DEMS, DERAILS PATH TO END HISTORIC DHS SHUTDOWN

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at the time, “There’s a lot of people asking about the 25th Amendment, invoking the 25th Amendment right now, because this is an alarming situation.” (Mariam Zuhaib/AP)

“Our adversaries see the weakness in this White House, as we all do,” Johnson added. “I take no pleasure in saying that. I think this is a very dangerous situation.”

Democrats quickly closed ranks and disputed accusations that Biden’s mental acuity was rapidly declining. Some, however, did call for Biden to drop out of the race against Trump over fears he would not be able to beat his political foe in a rematch after stumbling during their only debate.

Top congressional Democrats, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., reportedly urged Biden privately to step aside, and dozens of Democrats publicly called on him to exit the race while there was still time to find a replacement.

Neither, however, called for the 25th Amendment to be invoked against Biden. Pelosi did, however, renew her call to see Trump ousted through that process in recent days. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Donald Trump’s instability is more clear and dangerous than ever,” Pelosi said on X. “If the Cabinet is not willing to invoke the 25th Amendment and restore sanity, Republicans must reconvene the Congress to end this war.”

Schumer has so far stopped short of calling for Trump’s removal from power.

Trump, when pressed on next moves in Iran, joked in April during a Cabinet meeting that if he revealed what comes next, his own Cabinet would oust him.

“I can’t say what we’re going to do because if I did, I wouldn’t be sitting here for long. They’d probably — what is it called? The 25th Amendment — They’d institute the 25th Amendment,” Trump said. “Which they didn’t do with Biden, which is shocking.”