On March 4, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 357–65 to effectively kill a resolution by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace that would have required public release of internal congressional reports on sexual harassment and misconduct investigations. Instead of advancing the measure for a full vote on its merits, the House referred the resolution to the House Ethics Committee, a procedural move that all but ensures the proposal will not move forward this session. Only 38 Republicans and 27 Democrats broke with leadership and supported Mace’s effort, while one member voted present. The overwhelming bipartisan majority chose to shelve the plan, leaving existing confidentiality rules unchanged.

Mace’s resolution instructed the House Ethics Committee to publicly release, within 60 days, all documents related to investigations into alleged sexual harassment or improper relationships between members of Congress and their staff, including conclusions, draft reports, attachments, exhibits, and accompanying materials. It specified that personally identifiable information of victims or alleged victims would be redacted to protect privacy while making the substance of the reports public. The goal was to create transparency around how allegations are handled and to expose misconduct that has been kept confidential under current procedures.

Rep. Nancy Mace framed her resolution as a push for accountability and fairness on Capitol Hill. She argued that the culture of secrecy surrounding misconduct investigations has allowed lawmakers to evade scrutiny and accountability, leaving staffers vulnerable and the public in the dark. Mace pointed to recent controversies — including allegations against Rep. Tony Gonzales (R‑TX) involving inappropriate communications with a former staffer — as evidence that current practices are insufficient. She insisted that victims and the public deserve to know when congressional representatives have been accused of abusing their power, and that transparency is necessary to restore trust in the institution.

Leaders of the House Ethics Committee, including Chairman Michael Guest (R‑MS) and Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D‑CA), publicly opposed Mace’s resolution before the vote. They argued that forcing the release of investigative documents could “chill victim cooperation and witness participation” in current and future probes, potentially undermining the committee’s ability to investigate and eliminate misconduct. The Ethics Committee emphasized that confidentiality helps protect victims and encourages candid participation, and that the committee already shares certain findings when appropriate. Their statement urged lawmakers to refer the resolution to the committee, rather than advancing it directly.

The broad bipartisan vote against the resolution highlights a deep reluctance in Congress to mandate public disclosure of sensitive investigative material, even as demands for transparency persist. Many members — including some who said they support accountability — expressed concerns about the rushed nature of Mace’s proposal or the potential legal and procedural complications of publicizing internal ethics material. House leadership suggested that existing processes strike a balance between transparency and the need to protect confidentiality, especially when investigations are ongoing or involve unsubstantiated allegations. In debates on the floor and behind closed doors, lawmakers from both parties grappled with the tension between public access to information and responsible handling of confidential complaints.

With the resolution referred to the House Ethics Committee, there is no immediate requirement for the public release of misconduct reports under the current House ethics framework. Critics of the move — including Mace and some advocacy groups — argue that the decision allows misconduct to remain hidden, while defenders of the status quo maintain that confidentiality is essential to protect victims and ensure effective investigations. The vote underscores ongoing debates in Washington about government transparency, institutional accountability, and the balance between openness and due process. While this particular effort was blocked, the broader conversation about how misconduct in Congress is addressed and whether additional transparency measures are needed is likely to continue in future sessions of Congress.