WASHINGTON, D.C. — This recommendation marks the first time the House Ethics Committee has advised the chamber to censure one of its own members since 2010. The panel stated it would bring a privileged resolution for censure before the House, though a vote could not happen until September at the earliest because the House is on summer recess.

The committee found that Edwards engaged in persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers. It stated that he violated the House Code of Official Conduct by failing to adhere to the spirit of rules prohibiting sexual harassment of and unwanted advances to House staffers. The panel concluded that his pattern of behavior would lead a reasonable observer to interpret his actions as sexual or romantic.

He provided lavish gifts, made comments on appearance, invited staff to intimate dinners and vacations, and sent notes of affection. The report details that he gave the staffers jewelry worth over $1,000, designer purses, guns, shoes, flowers, a laptop, a cell phone, a KitchenAid mixer, a robotic vacuum, vacations, tickets to performances, and one-on-one dinners. He spent thousands of dollars on these items.

Specific instances included arranging for a singer to appear at one staffer's birthday party to sing Ed Sheeran’s song "Hills of Aberfeldy" and tell her the appearance was from a special someone. He brought one staffer on a trip to New York City where he planned a helicopter ride, dinner, and Broadway show to celebrate his birthday. He also paid for another staffer to go to New York City with a friend and bought them tickets to see "Hamilton" after she had gone through a breakup.

The congressman purchased spa treatments for one staffer and skipped House votes one night to go to her home and decorate a Christmas tree with her. At one staffer's going away party, he wrote a poem that he read aloud, during which he cried. He suggested to one staffer that they go to Annapolis for lunch, meditate by its water, stroll about town, find a day spa, see a movie, or wipe out the casino.

He texted one staffer, "I’m probably over thinking being impulsive but I really want you to enjoy our time together nearly as much as [I] know [I] will." He told the women they looked pretty or breathtaking and commented on one staffer's weight. He invited one staffer to private dinners and asked her not to have his scheduler put the dinner on his calendar. He sent personal texts late in the evenings to the staffers.

The report states that he brought one staffer to a holiday event at the White House, hid the details from other staffers, and tried to pressure her to stay with him after the event. He insisted she travel to and from the event in his car with his driver. He told the committee he did not recall suggesting they continue their evening and accompanied the staffer in the car because he felt uncomfortable dumping a young lady on the street.

He brought Staffer 1 to a White House event without telling the rest of his staff, bought her flowers, and texted her in advance that he was so excited about tonight and wanted it to be perfect. After the event, Staffer 1 said he tried to pressure her into continuing the night together. Even after she left his employment, Staffer 2 agreed to a trip to Las Vegas with him, saying she felt pressured to do so in part because he had influence over her being hired for another job in civil service. He paid for Staffer 2's flights, accommodation at the Bellagio hotel, and a show at the Sphere in Las Vegas.

The committee received evidence that Staffer 2 told a friend she believed the Congressman did not view her as just a daughter figure and that she was scared lowkey. He responded to Staffer 2, "Understood, and agree. I’m sorry it made you uncomfortable. Nothing was meant by it, other than what was intended to be a cute play on the name of the arrangement." The two staffers later resigned because of his behavior, but gave him other reasons why when they departed.

Both female staffers began working for him while he was a state senator and moved with him to his congressional office. One staffer was 19 when she began as an intern in his state Senate office, and he insisted on hiring her as his scheduler when he was elected to Congress. He left most of the hiring for his new office up to his chief of staff, but insisted on bringing three young women into his operation.

A senior aide spoke to him on behalf of the two young staffers in May 2025. The senior aide testified that he said she didn't understand the unique relationship he had with the two women. He got very angry when the senior employee spoke to him on behalf of the two women. The committee reported that he was aware that his excessive attention toward the young women had led to rumors and innuendo in the office.

The committee stated that the two female staffers were uncomfortable with his behavior and attempted to communicate this, but were put in an untenable position due to his status as their boss. He acknowledged at least some of the behavior at issue could be viewed as inappropriate but has not acknowledged or taken responsibility for the harm he caused. The report states that his conduct exposed his office to the litigation risk of a viable sexual harassment lawsuit.

He intentionally deleted some messages to the two women that were particularly inappropriate, a finding the committee said was central to their investigation. He testified he would delete messages at a whim and that a number of people use my phone. The committee reviewed nearly 1,500 pages of evidence and conducted 16 witness interviews, including with him, during its investigation. The panel released a 60-page appendix of messages between him and the two young women, as well as photos of gifts he gave them.

Despite these findings, the committee found no evidence that he engaged in sexual activity with or explicitly propositioned any individual under his employ. It concluded that the allegations do not implicate quid pro quo sexual harassment and that he did not violate federal sexual harassment law. He denied that his conduct was intended as a sexual or romantic advance. He contended his relationships with the women were professional boss-subordinate relationships and friendships.

He asserted in his interview that he understood sexual harassment and seemed to believe that by avoiding inappropriate physical touch and explicitly sexual comments, he had immunized himself from such a charge. He denied yelling at his staff. The report states that he singled out a staffer and isolated them from other staff, intruded on personal occasions without invitation, and paid for personal vacations for the staffers.

His conduct affected others in the office, with staffers testifying they felt he gave the two women preferential treatment. He told one staffer that an unfair standard existed in his office was caused by employees being jealous. The report states that his behavior impacted the morale of his office.

He agreed to waive procedures for the House Ethics Committee to recommend a sanction on the House floor. Lawyers for him said in a response to the report that the panel failed to demonstrate that the staffers expressed their discomfort to him. They said the congressman sincerely regrets that his behavior created discomfort for either of the two staffers.

Jamie Ager, his Democratic opponent, said, "My heart goes out to the young women who took these roles to serve our community." Ager added, "We deserve leaders with the moral character western North Carolina can be proud of." He is running for reelection in North Carolina’s 11th district. Sabato’s Crystal Ball rated his race a toss-up last week.

He has represented North Carolina in the House since 2023. He was elected in 2022 after ousting Madison Cawthorn in the Republican primary. The House Ethics Committee announced in May 2026 that it was investigating his conduct.

The committee voted to issue the report on July 22. The House is set to return from recess late this month.

Why It Matters

This recommendation marks the first time since 2010 that the House Ethics Committee has advised censuring a member, setting a potential precedent for addressing non-quid pro quo harassment. The findings show how persistent unprofessional conduct and lavish gifts can create untenable workplaces even without explicit sexual advances or violations of federal law. By focusing on the spirit of official conduct rules, the case establishes that behavior leading to reasonable interpretations of romantic intent carries significant professional consequences.