Senate Ethics Committee clears Gallego of misconduct as Luna vows fight isn’t over

The Senate Ethics Committee dismissed a complaint against Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., alleging sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations, but the congresswoman who filed it says the story is far from finished.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., filed the complaint earlier this year after claiming she had heard from multiple women about inappropriate behavior by Gallego. The six-member bipartisan panel investigated the allegations for roughly a month, requested additional information from Gallego on April 17 and again on May 15, and ultimately informed the senator by letter that it “did not find evidence that your actions violated Federal law, Senate Rules, or related standards of conduct.”

Gallego wasted no time declaring victory, calling the allegations “right-wing conspiracies peddled by far-right activists like Anna Paulina Luna, the White House and their allies.” Luna wasted no time firing back, warning Gallego to keep raising money for his legal defense fund and adding a parting shot: “Once a creep, always a creep, and you’re gonna need it.”

What the committee found, and what it didn’t

The committee’s letter was direct. It stated that the complaint “alleged campaign finance violations and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature.” After conducting its investigation and reviewing Gallego’s responses to two rounds of information requests, the panel found no evidence of wrongdoing.

But the dismissal came with a notable caveat. Breitbart reported that the committee reserved the right to revisit the matter if new facts emerge, a standard procedural note, but one that signals the door is not fully shut.

The Washington Examiner reported that the dismissal was dated June 26 and that Luna originally filed the complaint on April 17, alleging sexual misconduct involving at least one woman with attorneys prepared to go on record. Luna later claimed four women had troubling encounters with Gallego.

None of that made it into the committee’s final determination. The panel, three Republicans, three Democrats, reached a unanimous conclusion that the evidence did not support the charges.

Gallego’s Swalwell problem

The ethics complaint did not arise in a vacuum. Gallego has spent months trying to distance himself from former Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., whom he once described as his “best friend” in Congress. Swalwell resigned from the House after The San Francisco Chronicle published a report alleging he sexually assaulted a former staffer.

Gallego acknowledged the friendship had “clouded my judgment,” a rare concession for a sitting senator. The DOJ launched its own investigation into Swalwell after the allegations surfaced, adding federal scrutiny to a scandal that had already forced a resignation.

The connection between the two men goes beyond friendship. The New York Post reported that Gallego and Swalwell used money from a joint campaign account to pay for a trip to Super Bowl LVII and that the two had accepted an $85,000 trip to Doha, Qatar together in 2021. Those details paint a picture of a relationship that went well beyond casual Capitol Hill camaraderie.

Separately, a Politico report published June 21 found that Gallego spent thousands in campaign cash on luxury travel, Super Bowl tickets, and childcare. Gallego told Politico the spending was “not breaking news” and that members of both parties “regularly travel with their wives and children, as is permitted by the FEC.”

That defense may satisfy the letter of campaign finance law. Whether Arizona voters find it satisfying is another question.

Luna refuses to back down

If Gallego expected the dismissal to end the matter, Luna made clear he was wrong. She has been one of the most aggressive voices in Congress on misconduct allegations involving Democratic members, and she did not soften her tone after the committee’s decision.

In a series of posts on X, Luna rejected Gallego’s characterization of the allegations as conspiracy theories:

“Need I mention you leaving your pregnant wife during your campaign for Senate? There are plenty of people who know about your antics.”

She went further, suggesting that more damaging information could surface:

“The good news about D.C. is everyone talks, and eventually the reporters come forward with your texts.”

Luna also called Gallego “a gross example of representation” and told him to keep building his legal defense fund. The Washington Examiner noted that Gallego had set up such a fund last month to respond to the ethics inquiry, an unusual step for a senator facing a complaint that, according to his own framing, amounted to nothing.

The politics of cleared but not clean

Gallego’s statement after the dismissal was heavy on political framing. He called for an apology from Luna “for weaponizing the ethics process while refusing to investigate historic corruption that’s making life harder for families.” He added that he would “continue fighting for Arizonans and holding Trump Republicans accountable for high costs and new wars.”

That language tells you where Gallego sees this heading: not into contrition, but into campaign messaging. The ethics complaint becomes, in his telling, just another partisan attack, and his clearance becomes a shield.

The broader pattern around ethics investigations involving Democratic members is worth noting. Swalwell’s case involved years of rumors swirling through Washington before a newspaper report forced the issue into the open. Gallego himself admitted the friendship clouded his judgment. The committee’s dismissal does not erase those facts.

Nor does it answer the open questions. What specific conduct did Luna’s complainants describe? What were the “texts” Luna referenced? Why did Gallego need a legal defense fund for a complaint he says was baseless from the start?

The committee found no evidence of violations. That is a meaningful finding, and fairness demands it be stated plainly. But “no evidence found” after a monthlong review is not the same as “nothing happened.” It means the panel, working with the information it gathered, did not reach a threshold for action.

High-profile misconduct cases, from international tribunals to the halls of Congress, have a way of resurfacing when new witnesses or documents emerge. The committee itself acknowledged as much by reserving the right to reopen the case.

What comes next

For now, Gallego walks away cleared. Luna walks away defiant. The committee walks away having done its procedural duty without producing a public record of the evidence it reviewed or the testimony it considered.

Gallego’s campaign spending, his deep ties to a disgraced former colleague, and the unresolved questions about the women Luna says came forward, none of that disappears with a one-page letter. Arizona voters will have to decide whether a clean ethics finding settles the matter or whether the senator’s judgment, associations, and use of campaign funds deserve continued scrutiny.

Luna’s closing line may have been sharp, but the real question isn’t whether Gallego is a “creep.” It’s whether a monthlong investigation by a committee that rarely punishes its own is the last word, or just the first chapter.