FBI Seizes Devices From Former Rep. Eric Swalwell in Federal Civil Rights Probe

Federal agents seized former Rep. Eric Swalwell’s phone and laptop at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday under a search warrant tied to a federal civil rights investigation, according to court records obtained by the Bay Area News Group. Agents searched Swalwell’s Washington, D.C., home the following day.

The warrant inventory shows agents took Swalwell’s white Apple iPhone, charging cable, and MacBook Pro at 8:25 p.m. Saturday. The document was signed under penalty of perjury by FBI Special Agent Kyle R. Biebesheimer.

The public court docket identifies the California warrant as part of an investigation into possible violations of Section 242 of the federal criminal code “and other offenses.” That law — formerly known as deprivation of rights under color of law — is frequently used to prosecute police officers, corrections officials, and judges who abuse their government authority, but it can apply to other public officials.

Sources told CNN and CBS News the investigation is connected to sexual assault allegations against Swalwell. Four women confirmed to CNN that they have been contacted by the FBI as part of this probe.

Swalwell resigned from Congress and dropped his gubernatorial bid in April after reporting from CNN and the San Francisco Chronicle detailed allegations of sexual misconduct. One former staffer told CNN that Swalwell raped her in 2024 when she was heavily intoxicated, leaving her bruised and bleeding. “I was pushing him off of me, saying no,” the woman said. “He didn’t stop.”

Three other women alleged various kinds of sexual misconduct by Swalwell — including unsolicited explicit messages or nude photos. CNN later reported that more than a dozen other women described interactions with Swalwell that made them uncomfortable over the last decade.

Swalwell has denied all allegations and vowed in his resignation statement to fight them. No charges have been filed. An attorney for Swalwell and spokespeople for the FBI and Justice Department could not immediately be reached for comment.

Steven Clark, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, said the statute cited in the warrant could show the federal government is investigating the allegations by examining whether Swalwell’s conduct was based on his job or position as a member of Congress. “I think what they’re saying here is that this was based on his job or position as a member of Congress that gives rise to making this a federal investigation,” Clark said.

A 2022 article published in the Justice Department’s “Journal of Federal Law and Practice” examined how Section 242 can apply to sexual violence by government actors. It discussed clear-cut cases, such as a jail guard sexually assaulting an incarcerated woman, as well as less familiar applications involving judges, teachers, athletic trainers, medical professionals, and public housing officials. The 20-page article did not address how the law might apply to an elected representative.

Legal experts told the New York Post that the statute cited in Swalwell’s warrant suggests the feds may suspect Swalwell used his official role to silence women who accused him of sexual misconduct. Royal Oakes, a legal analyst for KNBC-TV, said it’s “really bad news for Swalwell.”

The statute makes it a crime for a public official to willfully use government authority to deprive someone of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. A basic conviction can carry up to one year in prison, but penalties can rise to up to 10 years if bodily injury results or even a potential life sentence for crimes involving aggravated sexual abuse.

Arick Fudali, an attorney for a Southern California woman who accused Swalwell of drugging her drink and raping her in a hotel room in 2018, said in a statement that they were “encouraged to learn about the escalation of the FBI’s investigation into the allegations against Eric Swalwell.” “We will continue to cooperate with any and all law enforcement agencies pursuing this matter in our fight for justice,” Fudali said.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office have both opened separate criminal investigations into the allegations.

Swalwell, who was elected in 2012 to represent parts of Alameda County in Congress, gained a national profile as a prominent Trump critic and mounted a brief run for president in 2019. He was considered a leading contender in this year’s California governor race before he dropped out. Before being elected to Congress, he worked as a deputy district attorney in Alameda County and spent three years on the Dublin City Council.

The Breakdown

• FBI agents executed a federal search warrant Saturday night at San Francisco International Airport, seizing Swalwell’s iPhone and MacBook Pro.
• Agents searched his Washington, D.C., home the following day.
• The warrant cites Section 242 of the federal criminal code — a civil rights statute that makes it a crime for a public official to willfully use government authority to deprive someone of constitutional rights.
• The statute is most often used to prosecute law enforcement officers, but can apply to other public officials. A 2003 case involved a Connecticut mayor convicted under the law for using his office and links with police to threaten two girls he sexually abused into silence.
• Four women have confirmed to CNN that they’ve been contacted by the FBI as part of this probe.
• The warrant application and supporting affidavit remain under seal, leaving unclear what specific conduct investigators believe could violate the law or what evidence they sought.
• Approval of a search warrant means a judge found probable cause to believe the search would uncover evidence connected to a crime — it does not establish that Swalwell committed a crime.

What This Means for You

This is about whether a member of Congress — someone voters chose to represent them — allegedly used the power and authority of that office to harm others and silence those who spoke up. The specific statute cited in the warrant tells you what federal investigators suspect: not just sexual assault itself, but the possible abuse of official power to commit or cover up that conduct.

That’s exactly the kind of conduct voters need to know about when deciding who to trust with elected office. Swalwell was a member of Congress until April, served on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees during his tenure, and was a leading candidate for California governor before resigning. His conduct in office — what he allegedly did with the authority voters gave him — is a direct accountability question for anyone who voted for him or might have in the future.

The investigation is ongoing, and no charges have been filed. But the escalation to a federal search warrant, the statute cited, and the involvement of multiple law enforcement agencies — federal, Manhattan DA, Los Angeles Sheriff — all tell you this is being taken seriously by investigators across jurisdictions.

What to Watch

The most important thing to watch is whether federal prosecutors file charges — and if they do, what exactly those charges allege. The statute cited in the warrant, Section 242, is serious: it’s the same law used to prosecute the police officers involved in George Floyd’s death, and it can carry a life sentence in the most severe cases involving aggravated sexual abuse.

But the statute’s use here raises a specific question: did Swalwell allegedly use his position as a member of Congress to commit the assaults, to intimidate witnesses, or to silence the women who came forward? Legal experts quoted in the material suggest that’s the avenue prosecutors may be pursuing — not just the assaults themselves, but the abuse of official power tied to them.

Also worth watching: whether the other criminal investigations — in Manhattan and Los Angeles — move forward, and whether they result in state charges. Federal and state prosecutors can pursue overlapping cases, and the outcome of one doesn’t determine the other.

Finally, watch for what the sealed warrant application eventually reveals, if it’s unsealed. Right now, we know what statute investigators cited, but not what specific conduct or evidence they’re focused on. The affidavit supporting the warrant would spell that out.