The Department of Homeland Security is investigating Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California over allegations he knowingly employed a Brazilian national as a nanny after her work authorization expired, and then used campaign funds to cover the cost, the Daily Caller reported.
A DHS spokesperson confirmed that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had been gathering information on the matter and escalated it to DHS law enforcement. The spokesperson did not mince words about what is at stake.
The allegations center on Amanda Raissa Barbosa, a Brazilian national who entered the United States on an au pair visa in 2021. Her work authorization expired in 2022. But Swalwell allegedly kept her on as a nanny for his children through 2023 and into 2024, and reportedly sought reimbursement for child care expenses from his own campaign account to pay for it.
If the allegations hold up, a sitting member of Congress violated the same federal employment laws his party routinely claims to support. And he may have compounded the problem by routing the payments through campaign funds, raising a separate set of legal questions about how donor money was spent.
The DHS spokesperson, identified by the New York Post as Lauren Bis, laid out the agency's position in stark terms.
"USCIS has been collecting information on the allegations involving Congressman Eric Swalwell hiring of a Brazilian national as a nanny without lawful work authorization. These allegations are serious. USCIS has referred this matter to DHS law enforcement for investigation."
Bis added a pointed reminder about the law's reach.
"Federal law prohibits employers from knowingly hiring aliens who are not authorized to work in the United States. No employer, including a member of Congress, is above the law. DHS will continue to aggressively enforce statutes to uphold the rule of law and protect American workers."
DHS also posted on social media platform X: "No one is above the law, including a member of Congress," as the Washington Examiner reported.
The investigation traces back to a complaint filed on February 16 by Joel Gilbert. That complaint alleges Barbosa arrived in the U.S. on an au pair visa in 2021. Au pair visas carry strict conditions, including limits on the type of work a visa holder may perform and a defined expiration date.
Barbosa's work authorization expired in 2022. The complaint alleges Swalwell continued employing her anyway. She did not receive permanent work authorization until 2024, leaving a gap of roughly two years during which she allegedly lacked legal permission to work in the United States.
During that gap, Swalwell reportedly concealed the arrangement by seeking reimbursement for child care expenses through his campaign, according to reporting attributed to the New York Post. A separate Labor Department complaint alleged that Swalwell and his wife misled officials to keep Barbosa in the country, Fox News reported.
The use of campaign funds to pay someone who allegedly lacked work authorization adds a second layer to the legal exposure. Federal election law governs how campaign money may be spent, and personal expenses, including household child care, are generally prohibited uses of donor dollars unless they meet narrow exceptions.
Swalwell did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the nanny allegations. But he gave a statement to the San Francisco Chronicle that addressed the broader wave of accusations now engulfing him.
"These allegations are false and come on the eve of an election against the frontrunner for governor."
He continued in a longer statement:
"For nearly 20 years, I have served the public, as a prosecutor and a congressman and have always protected women. I will defend myself with the facts and where necessary bring legal action. My focus in the coming days is to be with my wife and children and defend our decades of service against these lies."
Notice what Swalwell's statement does not do: it does not address the nanny allegations specifically. It does not deny that Barbosa worked for his family after her visa expired. It does not explain the campaign fund reimbursements. It frames the entire controversy as election-season smears, a familiar playbook for politicians facing legal scrutiny they would rather not discuss on the merits.
Swalwell is running for governor of California, seeking to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. That race now looks far more complicated.
The nanny investigation is not Swalwell's first brush with questions about his judgment and associations. Then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy removed Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee in 2023, a decision rooted in national security concerns tied to Swalwell's past relationship with Christine Fang, who reportedly worked with Communist China's Ministry of State Security.
That episode raised serious questions about whether a member with access to classified intelligence had been compromised by a foreign agent. Swalwell was never charged in connection with the Fang matter, but the removal from the Intelligence Committee was a rare and significant rebuke.
Now, separate sexual assault allegations have added to the pressure. The Manhattan District Attorney announced it was investigating one of the sexual assault allegations against Swalwell. Multiple Democrats have called on him to end his gubernatorial bid since those allegations became public.
The sexual assault claims are distinct from the nanny matter, but together they paint a picture of a politician whose public conduct increasingly diverges from the image he has built. Swalwell styled himself as a champion of accountability and women's rights throughout his congressional career.
An East Bay journalist has said Swalwell's conduct toward women was widely known in his home district, raising the question of how long the political establishment around him chose to look the other way.
The contradictions run deep. Swalwell once demanded that accusers of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh "deserve to be heard." Now that he faces his own accusers, his posture has shifted to blanket denial and claims of political motivation. That reversal has drawn sharp criticism from observers across the political spectrum.
Federal law is clear: employers may not knowingly hire individuals who lack authorization to work in the United States. The statute applies to every employer, from a landscaping company in Texas to a congressman's household in California. The DHS spokesperson's statement made that point explicitly.
If Swalwell knew, or should have known, that Barbosa's work authorization had expired in 2022 and continued employing her, he faces potential liability under federal immigration law. The campaign-fund angle could expose him to additional scrutiny from the Federal Election Commission or other oversight bodies, depending on how the reimbursements were categorized and reported.
The complaint filed by Joel Gilbert set this process in motion. USCIS collected information and then referred the case to DHS law enforcement, a step that signals the agency found the allegations serious enough to warrant a formal investigation rather than an administrative dismissal.
Congressional action may follow as well. At least one Republican lawmaker has already moved to expel Swalwell from Congress in connection with the sexual assault allegations. The nanny investigation only strengthens the case that Swalwell's position on Capitol Hill is increasingly untenable.
Multiple Democrats have called on Swalwell to abandon his bid for governor since the allegations became public. That is a notable development. Democratic leaders rarely break ranks against one of their own unless they believe the political damage is beyond repair.
The speed of the distancing suggests Swalwell's colleagues see something they cannot defend. A congressman under federal investigation for hiring an illegal immigrant, paying her with campaign money, and allegedly misleading authorities about the arrangement is not a candidate any party wants at the top of a statewide ticket.
Separate reports have indicated that additional allegations from former staffers may be forthcoming, further complicating Swalwell's political future.
Swalwell's statement to the San Francisco Chronicle framed the allegations as lies timed to an election. But the DHS investigation is not a campaign attack. It is a federal law enforcement matter, initiated through a formal complaint and escalated by career officials at USCIS. The Manhattan DA probe is a separate criminal inquiry. These are not opposition research hits. They are the machinery of legal accountability grinding forward.
Eric Swalwell built a career lecturing others about the rule of law. He sat on the Intelligence Committee. He positioned himself as a guardian of democratic norms. He demanded accountability from political opponents at every turn.
Now federal investigators want to know whether he broke the law in his own home, hiring an illegal immigrant, paying her with donor money, and hiding the arrangement for years. His own party is backing away. Two separate investigations, one federal, one criminal, are underway. And his defense so far amounts to calling it all a political hit job without addressing the specifics.
Accountability is easy to demand from others. Living up to it yourself is the hard part, and Swalwell appears to be failing the test he spent years imposing on everyone else.
