A California Democratic congressman was investigated in 2023 after a former House staffer filed a complaint alleging he made unwanted advances toward her and another young female intern at events hosted by a California nonprofit, a case quietly dismissed by congressional ethics bodies without ever becoming public through normal channels.
Rep. Jim Costa, the longtime Democrat from Fresno, faced the probe after the former staffer alleged he behaved inappropriately toward her in 2020, when she was a 22-year-old intern for a different lawmaker, and toward a Senate intern at a separate event in 2021. The complaint was filed with congressional ethics officials in early 2023, the New York Post reported, citing an investigation first published by NOTUS.
The Office of Congressional Conduct investigated the matter and recommended dismissal. The House Ethics Committee then unanimously voted to dismiss the case. A source familiar with the proceedings said lawmakers "didn't find enough evidence to proceed." Because the case was dismissed, it was never made public through the usual process, meaning the allegations stayed buried until NOTUS obtained the details.
The first woman, now working as a lobbyist, described a series of encounters that began at a California nonprofit event in 2020, when Costa was 67 years old. She alleged Costa approached her, asked why she was going home, and insisted she stay and dance with him.
She told NOTUS that when she said she had already danced, Costa pressed the point:
"I was like, 'I've already danced.' He's like, 'Well, I didn't dance with you.'"
The intern alleged Costa then asked her to "shimmy" with him, which she said they did in the checked bag area. She described the physical dynamic as uncomfortable:
"Every time I leaned back, it seemed like he got farther forward. So I was grateful that I could do a back bend. It was a very uncomfortable situation."
She said Costa then offered to help her career and invited her to dinner. She described interpreting the offer as something other than professional mentorship:
"He just said 'I would love to help you with your career. Let's get dinner.' Which when it comes from a powerful man, does not mean I want to help you."
Costa gave the intern his personal phone number. She said he also asked her to send her resume to his chief of staff. She told NOTUS she complied because she feared the consequences of refusing, saying she believed "if I didn't do these things, my career would be ruined."
The next day, the intern said she bumped into Costa again. She alleged he asked why she had not texted him and whether she had a boyfriend. Texts between them were reviewed by NOTUS.
The same woman alleged that roughly a year later, in 2021, she saw Costa at another event hosted by the same California nonprofit, this time approaching a different young woman, a Senate intern. She described what she witnessed:
"She very uncomfortably and awkwardly said yes. At which point he started spinning her around, like, touching, dancing."
The scene drew attention. The first intern said other attendees stared and some took photos. She described coordinating with a male staffer to intervene:
"Everyone was staring. A lot of people were taking photos. At which point, I looked at [the male staffer] and said, you go grab her hand and I will grab his."
The male staffer told NOTUS that the Senate intern later cried in the bathroom at the event. Costa was confronted and left. Breitbart reported that the Office of Congressional Conduct investigated the allegations but dismissed the matter, keeping it out of the public record.
Congressional ethics investigations that end in dismissal rarely surface at all. The system is designed to protect both the accused and the accuser, but in practice, dismissal means the public never learns that a complaint existed in the first place.
Costa's office did not deny that the probe occurred. A spokesperson said "all ethics complaints should always be taken seriously" and added that Costa "fully cooperated with a review conducted by the Office of Congressional Compliance and the House Committee on Ethics several years ago."
The office pointed to the outcome, stating that "the OCC recommended dismissal, and the Ethics Committee unanimously voted to dismiss the matter." When pressed on the specific allegations, the office said the results "speak for themselves."
That framing, cooperated, dismissed, case closed, is familiar to anyone who has watched recent efforts to pry open congressional harassment records. The ethics process in Congress operates largely behind closed doors, and dismissed cases vanish unless someone with firsthand knowledge decides to talk.
The 2020 and 2021 allegations are not the first time Costa's conduct around women has drawn official scrutiny. In 1986, when Costa was a 34-year-old state assemblymember, Sacramento police reported that he and a 19-year-old prostitute, traveling in a state-leased car, approached another woman and allegedly agreed to pay her $50 for an act of prostitution.
Costa apologized publicly at the time. "I made the mistake. I accept full responsibility for my error in judgment on last Saturday," he said. He survived the scandal politically and went on to serve in Congress, where he has represented Fresno for two decades.
The gap between those two episodes, 1986 and 2020, spans 34 years. Whether other complaints exist in the interim is unknown. The ethics system's confidentiality rules make it nearly impossible to know how many complaints have been filed against any sitting member unless the case advances to a public phase.
Costa is not the only California Democrat to face allegations of sexual misconduct in recent years. Rep. Eric Swalwell resigned from Congress this year and dropped his leading bid for the governorship after multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct. Swalwell denied those claims.
The Swalwell case generated far more public attention, in part because it intersected with a high-profile gubernatorial campaign. Donors demanded their money back as the accusations mounted, and the political fallout escalated rapidly.
Costa's case followed a quieter trajectory. The complaint was filed, the probe was conducted, and the matter was dismissed, all without a single public disclosure until NOTUS obtained the details. That silence raises a straightforward question: how many other dismissed complaints sit in the files of the Office of Congressional Conduct, unknown to voters?
The broader pattern extends beyond California's delegation. Recent ethics scandals involving other members of Congress have renewed calls for transparency in how the House handles allegations of misconduct by its own members.
Several key questions remain unresolved. The California nonprofit that hosted both events has not been named. The second intern, the Senate intern who allegedly cried in the bathroom, has not spoken publicly. The specific texts reviewed by NOTUS have not been published in full.
Costa's office offered no response to the individual allegations beyond pointing to the dismissal. The ethics process, by design, does not produce public findings when a case is dropped. That means voters in Fresno have no way to evaluate the underlying evidence, only the outcome.
The first intern's account is detailed and specific. She named dates, described physical interactions, and explained her reasoning for complying with Costa's requests. A male staffer corroborated part of her account of the 2021 incident. But the ethics bodies that reviewed the complaint concluded there was not enough to move forward.
Whether that reflects a genuine lack of evidence or the well-documented limitations of the congressional ethics process is a question the current system is not built to answer. Party leaders have shown little appetite for forcing transparency on their own members unless the political cost of silence becomes unbearable.
A 67-year-old congressman asking a 22-year-old intern to shimmy in a checked bag area, offering career help over dinner, and then asking the next day if she has a boyfriend, that is a set of facts the public can evaluate on its own. The ethics committee decided it was not enough. Voters may reach a different conclusion.
Congress keeps telling the public to trust its internal process. The process keeps telling the public nothing at all.