The warrants put a former California congressman at the center of a federal investigation while leaving major questions about the alleged conduct and potential case unresolved. A search warrant signals an investigation, not a criminal finding.
The FBI seized Eric Swalwell’s phone and searched Eric Swalwell’s home as part of a federal investigation, according to court records and reporting by USA TODAY. Agents took the former California representative’s iPhone, MacBook Pro and accessories under a warrant executed Aug. 15, and a second warrant targeted his Washington, D.C., residence the following day.
The searches are a serious escalation in scrutiny of Swalwell, but they are not a criminal charge or a finding of wrongdoing. The FBI declined to comment to USA TODAY, and Swalwell had not been charged in connection with the investigation described in the records.
What the warrants show
USA TODAY reported that federal agents executed multiple search warrants over the weekend in an investigation involving allegations of sexual misconduct. Court records cited by the outlet identify an Aug. 15 warrant executed at 8:25 p.m.
That warrant resulted in the seizure of Swalwell’s iPhone, MacBook Pro, charging cable and wall adapter, according to the records. Electronics often matter in federal investigations because investigators may seek messages, call records, photographs, location data or other digital evidence.
The documents did not state where the first warrant was served. Multiple news outlets reported that agents served Swalwell after he landed at San Francisco International Airport.
A separate warrant was served Aug. 16 at Swalwell’s residence in Washington, D.C., according to reporting cited by USA TODAY from The New York Times, CBS News and NBC News. The reports said agents seized additional evidence from the residence, though the available account does not provide a complete inventory.
A search is not a charge
The distinction matters. To obtain a search warrant, federal investigators generally must persuade a judge that there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime may be found in the place or property to be searched. That is a legal threshold for an investigative step, not proof that a person committed a crime.
Investigators can review material seized under a warrant, pursue further interviews, seek more records or ultimately decide there is insufficient evidence to bring a case. Prosecutors could also seek charges, negotiate a resolution or refer issues elsewhere. None of those outcomes is established by the searches alone.
USA TODAY reported that Swalwell has not been charged. The FBI’s decision not to comment means the public record does not yet explain what evidence agents believe they are seeking, which allegations they are examining or whether any potential case will move forward.
That uncertainty is likely to shape the public debate. Supporters may argue that the lack of charges should temper conclusions about Swalwell, while critics may point to the warrants as evidence that the allegations required substantial federal scrutiny. Both views can coexist with the basic fact that the investigation remains unresolved.
The statute cited in records
According to USA TODAY, court records show the federal government is investigating Swalwell under 18 U.S.C. § 242, along with other possible offenses. The statute concerns willfully depriving someone of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law while acting under color of law.
The Justice Department describes that provision as applying when a person uses authority granted by government office or employment to violate protected rights. Its potential penalties vary substantially with the facts alleged and the harm involved.
The presence of a statute in warrant-related records does not establish that prosecutors will charge that offense, or any offense. Federal investigations frequently examine multiple legal theories before prosecutors decide whether the available evidence supports a case.
It also remains unclear from the reporting how investigators believe the statute applies to Swalwell’s circumstances. That missing detail is important because the legal phrase “under color of law” has a specific meaning and cannot be assumed from a warrant headline alone.
Older scrutiny adds context
The new searches arrive after renewed attention to Swalwell’s past contacts with Christine Fang, a suspected Chinese intelligence operative. USA TODAY reported that FBI Director Kash Patel had pushed for release of records related to a decade-old, closed investigation involving Swalwell and Fang.
The White House released declassified records Aug. 17 that included accounts of FBI interviews in which Swalwell acknowledged having a physical relationship with Fang on several occasions in 2015, according to USA TODAY. Fang had reportedly helped raise money for Swalwell’s 2014 reelection campaign and placed an intern in his congressional office.
Swalwell cut ties with Fang after federal agents raised concerns, the outlet reported, and he assisted the FBI’s investigation. In 2023, the Republican-led House Ethics Committee closed its investigation of him.
Those events provide political and personal context, but they should not be treated as an explanation for the current warrants unless investigators say so. The available reporting describes the recent federal inquiry as involving allegations of sexual misconduct, while the earlier Fang matter was a separate, closed investigation.
Swalwell’s political reversal
The warrants come after a sharp change in Swalwell’s public career. USA TODAY reported that he ended his bid for California governor and resigned from Congress in April after several women alleged that he committed sexual assault and misconduct.
Those allegations are allegations, not adjudicated facts. The available source material does not detail whether the FBI’s investigation concerns one accusation, several accusations or conduct connected to any particular period of Swalwell’s time in office.
For a former elected official, the scrutiny carries consequences beyond any court case. It can affect public credibility, political alliances and the ability to respond publicly while lawyers and investigators are involved. At the same time, public figures retain the same presumption that allegations must be tested rather than assumed true.
What remains unknown
The most concrete facts so far are the warrants and the seized electronics. The public does not yet know the full scope of the evidence collected, whether agents have searched any additional locations, whether Swalwell has been interviewed or whether prosecutors expect to make a charging decision.
There is also no public explanation from the FBI for the timing of the searches. The agency’s refusal to comment is common in active investigations, particularly when public disclosure could affect witnesses, evidence or later legal proceedings.
For now, the warranted conclusion is narrower than the political noise around the case: federal agents searched property connected to Eric Swalwell and seized devices while investigating serious allegations. Whether that investigation produces charges, clears key questions or ends without a case is still unknown.
Leave a Reply