Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Alleges Backroom Deal After House Blocks Censure of Delegate Stacey Plaskett
A Contentious Day on Capitol Hill
A day of high tension in Congress unfolded as Representative Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican from Florida, slammed House leadership for what she called a “backroom deal” to protect members on both sides of the aisle. Her accusations followed the House’s rejection of a resolution to censure Democratic Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett, stemming from claims about her past communications with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The failure of the censure vote prompted Luna to publicly accuse leaders of orchestrating a trade-off: blocking her measure against Plaskett in exchange for the withdrawal of a separate effort to censure and refer Republican Representative Cory Mills of Florida for an ethics investigation. In a fiery statement from the House floor, Luna said, “The swamp protects itself,” adding that both Democratic and Republican leaders had engaged in behind-the-scenes agreements to shield their colleagues from scrutiny.
The confrontation underscored simmering tensions within the House GOP and highlighted how partisan divisions — often amplified by personal rivalries — continue to complicate legislative operations in a sharply divided chamber.
The Failed Censure Vote
Luna introduced the censure resolution against Plaskett after resurfaced records suggested she may have exchanged text messages with Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing related to sex trafficking and financial crimes. Plaskett, who previously served as a prosecutor and is a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, has denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations politically motivated and “wholly unfounded.”
When the resolution came to the floor, a handful of Republicans joined Democrats in voting against it, causing the measure to fail. According to House rules, a censure serves as one of the strongest public forms of rebuke the chamber can issue against a member, falling just short of expulsion.
After the vote, Luna sought recognition for a parliamentary inquiry, pressing leadership to explain why, in her words, “deals were being cut behind closed doors to protect individuals alleged to be involved in corruption.” Her remarks sparked a flurry of procedural motions as party leaders attempted to steer the chamber back to the legislative calendar, highlighting how procedural disputes can quickly deepen factional divides.
Accusations of a Political Trade-Off
The heart of Luna’s accusation centered on Rep. Cory Mills, a fellow Republican from Florida. Earlier in the session, Democratic lawmakers had introduced a measure to censure Mills and refer him to the House Ethics Committee over alleged misuse of resources related to campaign activities. That resolution was abruptly withdrawn before the Plaskett vote.
Luna claimed that a deal had been struck to suppress both votes — saving Mills from an ethics investigation and Plaskett from a rare public reprimand. “What the American people witnessed today was not accountability,” Luna said in a hallway interview following the vote. “It was self-preservation by people in power.”
House leadership has not confirmed or denied the existence of any arrangement. A senior Republican aide, speaking on background, suggested that the decision to shelve the Mills resolution was made independently, emphasizing the leadership’s focus on “maintaining floor discipline” and avoiding “a tit-for-tat political meltdown.”
Democrats, meanwhile, dismissed Luna’s allegations as a “stunt” designed to inflame tensions and distract from internal GOP divisions. A spokesperson for Delegate Plaskett described the episode as “a baseless and politically charged attack designed to smear a respected public servant.”
Historical Context of Censure in Congress
Censure in the U.S. House of Representatives has long carried deep symbolic weight, reserved for members accused of serious ethical lapses or misconduct. The first censure occurred in 1832 against Representative William Stanbery for insulting the Speaker of the House. Since then, fewer than 30 members have been formally censured — a fraction of the thousands who have served.
Recent years have seen a resurgence of censure efforts amid rising partisanship. In 2023, for instance, the House censured Representatives Adam Schiff and Jamaal Bowman over alleged misconduct and misuse of office resources, respectively. These votes often fall along strict party lines, reflecting broader political polarization rather than consensus on ethical standards.
Compared to prior eras when censure votes were rare and often involved bipartisan debate, today’s Congress frequently uses the procedure as a political weapon. Analysts note that this strategic use of censure signals how accountability mechanisms have shifted from genuine oversight to symbolic partisan expression.
Economic and Political Implications
While the censure battles might appear insular to Washington insiders, their implications reach beyond politics. The perception that Congress prioritizes internal power struggles over substantive governance can affect public trust, market confidence, and the nation’s political stability.
Political economists point out that persistent dysfunction in Congress undermines investor confidence in U.S. fiscal governance. Episodes of gridlock or public scandal often coincide with market jitters and declines in consumer confidence. The repeated spectacle of lawmakers engaging in partisan infighting, rather than policymaking, can exacerbate volatility and dampen bipartisan cooperation on issues such as infrastructure, national security, and economic growth.
In this light, Luna’s accusations — whether substantiated or not — feed into a broader narrative of political disillusionment. Surveys consistently show that congressional approval ratings hover below 20 percent, with voters from both parties citing corruption and lack of transparency as key concerns. The latest controversy may reinforce perceptions that even reform-minded lawmakers face resistance when challenging entrenched interests.
Regional and Partisan Reactions
In Florida, reactions were mixed. Supporters of Luna praised her for “speaking truth to power” and holding both parties accountable. Conservative advocacy groups amplified her remarks on social media, framing the incident as evidence of bipartisan corruption in Washington. In contrast, local Democratic organizations condemned the accusations as “reckless conspiracy theories” aimed at discrediting a Black female lawmaker.
In the Virgin Islands, Delegate Plaskett’s constituents largely rallied behind her. Local media reported strong public support, with several civic groups publishing statements defending her record and condemning what they described as politically driven harassment. The controversy also renewed discussions about the unique position of territorial delegates in Congress, who can sit on committees and participate in debates but lack floor voting rights on final legislation.
Political observers across the Caribbean region noted that any scandal involving an elected representative from a U.S. territory reverberates beyond American shores, affecting perceptions of Washington’s governance and regional diplomacy. For constituents in smaller jurisdictions like the Virgin Islands, these controversies risk overshadowing pressing legislative needs, from disaster relief to economic development.
The Internal Struggle in the House GOP
Beyond the immediate debate over Plaskett and Mills, the episode highlights growing fractures within the Republican Party. Freshman and populist members like Luna have increasingly positioned themselves against what they describe as an “establishment-driven leadership unwilling to confront corruption directly.” These tensions mirror earlier divides between conservatives and moderates over spending bills, Ukraine funding, and the speakership battles that consumed 2023 and 2024.
For GOP leaders navigating a razor-thin majority, maintaining internal unity remains a constant challenge. Even small rebellions can derail legislative agendas or stall negotiations with the Democratic-controlled Senate. Some analysts suggest that the censure controversy may foreshadow deeper struggles as the House approaches key deadlines on federal spending, defense policy, and oversight investigations.
A House Divided Against Itself
By the end of the session, the chamber had returned to consideration of appropriations bills, but the ripples from Luna’s accusations lingered. Lawmakers from both parties privately acknowledged that trust within the House has eroded, and that behind-the-scenes deals — whether real or perceived — fuel skepticism about congressional integrity.
Ethics experts note that such allegations highlight the opacity of congressional operations. While rules govern disclosures, committee assignments, and conflicts of interest, enforcement often depends on political will. In practice, that means leadership wields considerable discretion in determining which members face discipline and which do not.
The result, according to several observers, is a climate where members like Luna—who campaign on transparency and reform—find themselves at odds with institutional power. Her defiant tone reflects a growing populist call for accountability across party lines, though critics warn that constant infighting risks paralyzing legislative progress.
Looking Ahead
As Congress approaches a new session and prepares for a contentious election year, the clash between reformist rhetoric and political pragmatism will likely intensify. Whether Luna’s allegations spark a formal inquiry remains uncertain, but the episode has already deepened divisions and amplified public cynicism toward the institution.
In the halls of Capitol Hill, where alliances shift by the hour, the phrase “the swamp protects itself” now echoes as both an accusation and a warning. For many voters, it encapsulates the persistent challenge facing American governance: the struggle to balance accountability with power, and principle with politics.