Sexual Misconduct Vote: Langworthy Backed Transparency Against Party Leadership

Statement

Source: Facebook Post and Press Release, March 5, 2026

“I was proud to be one of the 65 members who stands for transparency. It’s a disgrace that Congress has shielded their identities and used precious taxpayer dollars for this secret slush fund. Enough.”

Congressional Record / The Facts

On March 4, 2026, the House voted 357–65 on H.Res. 1100, a resolution introduced by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) that would have required public release of House Ethics Committee records related to sexual misconduct investigations.

The motion before the House was a motion to refer — a procedural move that sent the resolution back to the Ethics Committee, effectively tabling it. Members who voted yes on the motion to refer were voting to bury the resolution. Members who voted no were voting to keep the transparency measure alive.

Langworthy voted no — against the motion to refer — meaning he supported releasing the records.

Roll Call 83 breakdown:

Langworthy was among the 38 Republicans who voted against their party leadership’s position. His office also confirmed he voted in the House Oversight Committee to subpoena the Ethics Committee records — an additional step his Facebook post did not mention.

The $17 million figure

The “precious taxpayer dollars” reference is to approximately $17 million in settlements paid from the Congressional Office of Compliance fund — a figure cited by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) based on House records. The fund, which predates Langworthy’s tenure, has paid out claims on behalf of Congress members and their offices since 1997, with identities kept confidential.

Context

What the post doesn’t address: the survivor protection argument

H.Res. 1100 was controversial not only among members protecting colleagues but also among members and advocates who had genuine concerns about survivor identification.

The resolution would have required public disclosure of Ethics Committee records on sexual misconduct investigations. Critics argued the text — drafted and moved quickly — did not include adequate protections to prevent the identification of survivors. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and others argued that disclosing records without robust redaction protocols could effectively doxx accusers, potentially deterring future complaints.

This is a legitimate objection, not just a fig leaf: victim protection in sexual misconduct proceedings is a well-established principle in both civil and criminal law. The fact that 357 members voted to refer the resolution back to committee does not mean all 357 were covering up misconduct. Some were weighing whether the bill as written was safe for the people it claimed to protect.

Langworthy’s framing — “Congress has shielded their identities and used precious taxpayer dollars for this secret slush fund” — describes the 357 collectively as bad actors and ignores the survivor-protection argument entirely.

The Epstein context: transparency where it’s politically convenient

Langworthy’s transparency language here sits uncomfortably alongside his record on the Epstein files, where the calculus was reversed:

• He did not sign the discharge petition to force a floor vote on Epstein file release, despite publicly saying he supports transparency.
• He did not attend the House Oversight Committee deposition of Jeffrey Epstein’s former associate Alan Dershowitz.
• He received criticism from constituents and press for these omissions, documented in a prior fact-check.

Voting to release Ethics Committee records of congressional sexual misconduct — a vote that went against his own party leadership — is a genuine transparency position. But it arrives in the context of a member who has been publicly criticized for selective transparency, and the framing invites the inference that Langworthy is a consistent transparency advocate when the record is more complicated.

This is the exception, but the exception proves the rule

This is one of the rare instances where Langworthy’s vote went against Republican leadership — 319 of his Republican colleagues voted to bury the resolution. That is worth noting. The concern is what’s absent from his framing, not the vote itself.

Sources

• House Clerk Roll Call 83 (March 4, 2026): house.gov/clerk
• Rep. Langworthy press release, March 5, 2026: langworthy.house.gov
• NBC News, “House votes to send Mace’s sexual misconduct resolution to committee,” March 4, 2026
• The Hill, “House refers Mace resolution on Ethics records back to committee,” March 4, 2026
• Roll Call, “House tables Mace resolution to release Ethics records,” March 4, 2026

Related Fact-Checks

• Rhetoric vs. Actions Overview — Context on when Langworthy’s votes align with stated positions

Note: This entry documents publicly available information from the House Clerk and independent reporting. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

Last updated: March 10, 2026