Photo: Well This Is News
Republican Nancy Mace takes stand against party colleague over sexual misconduct, domestic violence allegations
Nancy Mace moves to expel Cory Mills over stolen valor and misconduct claims in rare intraparty action
Rep. Nancy Mace introduces expulsion resolution against fellow Republican Cory Mills over ethics allegations
Key Takeaways
- Mace introduced an expulsion resolution she likely knew would fail, since expulsion requires a two-thirds majority and has succeeded only once in the last 20 years, making this a strategic performance rather than a genuine removal attempt.
- Both sides avoided discussing why Mace bypassed the ongoing House Ethics Committee investigation to pursue a faster floor vote, which raises questions about whether this move is driven by conviction or by electoral timing.
- The resolution forces House Republicans to vote on record either to expel Mills or to protect him, allowing Mace political credit for accountability while leadership can oppose expulsion without appearing to defend misconduct.
The Analysis
Nancy Mace's move to expel Cory Mills is being presented by both sides as evidence of their preferred narrative about Republican values—but neither side is naming the actual mechanism that made this necessary or explaining why the House Ethics Committee investigation alone wasn't sufficient.
Here are the facts: Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL) faces an active House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, domestic violence, and stolen valor—specifically, claiming military credentials he did not possess. Mace's resolution, introduced in early 2026, seeks expulsion under House Rule XVIII, which requires a two-thirds majority vote. Mills has denied all allegations.
MSNBC frames this as evidence of Mace's personal integrity: "Republican Nancy Mace introduces measure to expel fellow Republican Cory Mills." That language—"introduces measure"—buries the lead. It emphasizes Mace as the moral actor while treating the underlying allegations as secondary context. The left's framing suggests this is about one courageous Republican breaking ranks. What it omits: the House Ethics Committee process that was already underway, which would have been the normal institutional mechanism for accountability. Mace bypassed it. Why? Because ethics investigations conclude slowly, and expulsion via floor vote is faster and more final. That's a tactical choice, not a virtue signal, but calling it a "measure" makes it sound procedurally routine.
Fox News and the Washington Examiner emphasize the "stolen valor" allegation specifically: Mills accused of "misrepresenting his military service." This framing matters because stolen valor carries moral weight independent of the other allegations. It transforms the story from workplace misconduct into breach of military integrity. What the right omits: whether Mace's resolution addresses all the allegations equally or whether the stolen valor claim is being emphasized because it's the least partisan—easier to unite around fake military service than to litigate sexual misconduct claims. The Examiner mentions "profiteering," but neither outlet specifies what that means or whether it's been substantiated.
Neither side names this: expulsion requires a two-thirds vote. That's 290 votes in a current House of 435 members. Mace knows Mills will not receive that many votes. She introduced the resolution knowing it will fail. So this is not actually an attempt to remove Mills; it's a performative move designed to put Republicans on record voting either to expel a colleague or to protect one facing serious allegations. That's the real story both sides are avoiding. Mace gets credit for "holding her party accountable." Republican leadership gets to vote against expulsion and protect Mills. Mills stays in office. The House Ethics Committee process continues in the background, invisible.
The missing context: In the last decade, House expulsion has been attempted exactly three times and succeeded zero times. The last successful expulsion was in 2002. The threshold is deliberately high because expulsion is meant to be extraordinary. By invoking it for an ongoing ethics investigation rather than letting the ethics process complete, Mace is either showing real conviction about Mills's unfitness—in which case, why not wait for the ethics committee to finish—or performing outrage for a primary audience. The fact that neither side is discussing the strategic timing suggests both benefit from leaving that question unanswered.
The normalization of performative accountability—where politicians introduce doomed procedural gestures to claim moral authority while protecting the actual mechanisms of institutional consequence—reveals a deeper erosion of how Congress polices itself.