Ethics panel directs Ocasio-Cortez to make more payments for Met Gala ‘Tax the Rich' outfit
Ocasio-Cortez had already made payments to account for the rental cost of the dress and accessories in 2022, but in a report released publicly on Friday, the Ethics Committee found the estimated rental cost to be 'unrealistic' and below market value, amounting to an impermissible gift not in compliance with federal law and House rules — even though it said the violations were not 'knowing and willful.'
Ocasio-Cortez is expected to pay the difference, which would bring an end to the years-long investigation into her Met Gala attendance.
While Ocasio-Cortez previously paid $990.76 for the cost of renting her Met Gala ensemble from designer Brother Vellies, the committee found that the designer's accountant previously 'vastly undervalued the apparel,' and found $3,724.04 to be closer to fair market value for the rental — saying it would be 'appropriate' for her to repay an additional $2,733.28 to comply with the Gift Rule.
The Ethics Committee also found that Ocasio-Cortez should donate the $250 cost of her now-fiance's meal at the gala to the Met's Costume Institute.
The panel noted that Ocasio-Cortez made 'significant steps' to comply with House gift rules, and that her attendance at the event otherwise complied with House rules.
'The Congresswoman appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules and sought to act consistently with her ethical requirements as a Member of the House,' Mike Casca, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, said in a statement. 'She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she's done at each step in this process.'
Ocasio-Cortez separately previously paid for the cost of makeup, hotel rooms, transportation, and other 'similar benefits' in connection with attending the Met Gala, totaling around $7,500. With the new costs directed by the committee, Ocasio-Cortez will have personally paid over $10,000 for the Met Gala evening, her counsel told the Ethics Committee.
'It would be nonsensical to suggest that the Congresswoman should have been prepared to pay for aspects of items and services that she didn't know about and didn't authorize,' her counsel said in a May 2025 letter.
The Ethics Committee first released a report from the Office of Congressional Ethics — now called the Office of Congressional Conduct — in 2023 that scrutinized Ocasio-Cortez's Met Gala attendance and suggested she may have accepted impermissible gifts related to the event. That report showed frustration from some vendors about payments for hair and makeup services for the event being delayed for months, as well as payments for her Met Gala ensemble and other associated costs being paid months later.
After further investigation, the Ethics Committee determined that the delay in making payments was not intentional and Ocasio-Cortez was not personally aware of the extent of the delays.
But the panel also determined that Ocasio-Cortez's payments for her outfit were below market value, and that efforts to estimate the cost 'failed to account for the true cost of such unique goods, particularly considering that they were custom-made for the congresswoman and likely had no further use after the event.'
And it dinged Ocasio-Cortez's team for bringing up the mass-market clothing rental service Rent the Runway as a data point when assessing costs associated with renting a Met Gala outfit, as a Brother Vellies accountant testified and a publicist testified.
'The comparison of a one-of-a-kind, custom-made designer gown to those sold commercially and rented to numerous individuals on Rent the Runway is simply inapposite,' the Ethics Committee said.
Ocasio-Cortez's counsel told the panel in 2024 that Rent the Runway was brought up only when estimating if the congresswoman could afford to attend the event, and that the congresswoman did not direct others to use those estimations to influence the cost of a rental.
The panel estimated that cost of goods to create the dress was $6,279.10 rather than $1,000 — making the 'true retail value of the gown designed for Representative Ocasio-Cortez was likely approximately $18,837.30, and $2,976.29 would be a more reasonable fair market value for rental of the gown' rather than
It also said the invoice provided by Brother Vellies did not account for a custom flower hairpiece that Ocasio-Cortez wore, and that Ocasio-Cortez should pay $36.71 to account for the rental of that hairpiece.
The panel found previous invoices of $160 for rental of shoes, $170 for rental of a handbag, and $78.47 for rental of jewelry to be permissible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
4 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Women in legislatures across the U.S. fight for ‘potty parity'
For female state lawmakers in Kentucky, choosing when to go to the bathroom has long required careful calculation. There are only two bathroom stalls for women on the third floor of the Kentucky Statehouse, where the House and Senate chambers are located. Female legislators — 41 of the 138 member Legislature — needing a reprieve during a lengthy floor session have to weigh the risk of missing an important debate or a critical vote. None of their male colleagues face the same dilemma because, of course, multiple men's bathrooms are available. The Legislature even installed speakers in the men's bathrooms to broadcast the chamber's events so they don't miss anything important. In a pinch, House Speaker David Osborne allows women to use his single stall bathroom in the chamber, but even that attracts long lines. 'You get the message very quickly: This place was not really built for us,' said Rep. Lisa Willner, a Democrat from Louisville, reflecting on the photos of former lawmakers, predominantly male, that line her office. The issue of potty parity may seem comic, but its impact runs deeper than uncomfortably full bladders, said Kathryn Anthony, professor emerita at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's School of Architecture. 'It's absolutely critical because the built environment reflects our culture and reflects our population,' said Anthony, who has testified on the issue before Congress. 'And if you have an environment that is designed for half the population but forgets about the other half, you have a group of disenfranchised people and disadvantaged people.' There is hope for Kentucky's lady legislators seeking more chamber potties. A $300 million renovation of the 155-year-old Capitol — scheduled for completion by 2028 at the soonest — aims to create more women's restrooms and end Kentucky's bathroom disparity. The Bluegrass State is among the last to add bathrooms to aging statehouses that were built when female legislators were not a consideration. In the $392 million renovation of the Georgia Capitol, expanding bathroom access is a priority, said Gerald Pilgrim, chief of staff with the state's Building Authority. It will introduce female facilities on the building's fourth floor, where the public galleries are located, and will add more bathrooms throughout to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 'We know there are not enough bathrooms,' he said. There's no federal law requiring bathroom access for all genders in public buildings. Some 20 states have statutes prescribing how many washrooms buildings must have, but historical buildings — such as statehouses — are often exempt. Over the years, as the makeup of state governments has changed, statehouses have added bathrooms for women. When Tennessee's Capitol opened in 1859, the architects designed only one restroom — for men only — situated on the ground floor. According to legislative librarian Eddie Weeks, the toilet could only be 'flushed' when enough rainwater had been collected. 'The room was famously described as 'a stench in the nostrils of decency,'' Weeks said in an email. Today, Tennessee's Capitol has a female bathroom located between the Senate and House chambers. It's in a cramped hall under a staircase, sparking comparisons to Harry Potter's cupboard bedroom, and it contains just two stalls. The men also just have one bathroom on the same floor, but it has three urinals and three stalls. Democratic Rep. Aftyn Behn, who was elected in 2023, said she wasn't aware of the disparity in facilities until contacted by The Associated Press. 'I've apparently accepted that waiting in line for a two-stall closet under the Senate balcony is just part of the job,' she said. 'I had to fight to get elected to a legislature that ranks dead last for female representation, and now I get to squeeze into a space that feels like it was designed by someone who thought women didn't exist — or at least didn't have bladders,' Behn said. The Maryland State House is the country's oldest state capitol in continuous legislative use, operational since the late 1700s. Archivists say its bathroom facilities were initially intended for white men only because desegregation laws were still in place. Women's restrooms were added after 1922, but they were insufficient for the rising number of women elected to office. Delegate Pauline Menes complained about the issue so much that House Speaker Thomas Lowe appointed her chair of the 'Ladies Rest Room Committee,' and presented her with a fur covered toilet seat in front of her colleagues in 1972. She launched the women's caucus the following year. It wasn't until 2019 that House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones, the first woman to secure the top position, ordered the addition of more women's restrooms along with a gender-neutral bathroom and a nursing room for mothers in the Lowe House Office Building. As more women were elected nationwide in the 20th century, some found creative workarounds. In Nebraska's unicameral Legislature, female senators didn't get a dedicated restroom until 1988, when a facility was added in the chamber's cloakroom. There had previously been a single restroom in the senate lounge, and Sen. Shirley Marsh, who served for some 16 years, would ask a State Patrol trooper to guard the door while she used it, said Brandon Metzler, the Legislature's clerk. In Colorado, female House representatives and staff were so happy to have a restroom added in the chamber's hallway in 1987 that they hung a plaque to honor then-state Rep. Arie Taylor, the state's first Black woman legislator, who pushed for the facility. The plaque, now inside a women's bathroom in the Capitol, reads: 'Once here beneath the golden dome if nature made a call, we'd have to scramble from our seats and dash across the hall ... Then Arie took the mike once more to push an urge organic, no longer do we fret and squirm or cross our legs in panic.' The poem concludes: 'In mem'ry of you, Arie (may you never be forgot), from this day forth we'll call that room the Taylor Chamber Pot.' New Mexico Democratic state Rep. Liz Thomson recalled missing votes in the House during her first year in office in 2013 because there was no women's restroom in the chamber's lounge. An increase in female lawmakers — New Mexico elected the largest female majority Legislature in U.S. history in 2024 — helped raise awareness of the issue, she said. 'It seems kind of like fluff, but it really isn't,' she said. 'To me, it really talks about respect and inclusion.' The issue is not exclusive to statehouses. In the U.S. Capitol, the first restroom for congresswomen didn't open until 1962. While a facility was made available for female U.S. Senators in 1992, it wasn't until 2011 that the House chamber opened a bathroom to women lawmakers. Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first woman elected to a congressional seat. That happened in 1916. Willner insists that knowing the Kentucky Capitol wasn't designed for women gives her extra impetus to stand up and make herself heard. 'This building was not designed for me,' she said. 'Well, guess what? I'm here.' Kruesi and Rush write for the Associated Press. AP writer Brian Witte in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this report.
Forbes
5 minutes ago
- Forbes
'Trump Accounts' Are The Next Generation's First Steps Toward Financial Independence
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 03: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (C) is congratulated by his ... More fellow Republicans after signing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act during an enrollment ceremony in the Rayburn Room at the U.S. Capitol on July 03, 2025 in Washington, DC. The House passed the sweeping tax and spending bill after winning over fiscal hawks and moderate Republicans. The bill makes permanent President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, increase spending on defense and immigration enforcement and temporarily cut taxes on tips, while at the same time cutting funding for Medicaid, food assistance for the poor, clean energy and raises the nation's debit limit by $5 trillion. (Photo by) On July 4th, Congress signed into law H.R.1 – more commonly known as 'One Big Beautiful Bill' – one of the most sweeping policy reforms from the White House in recent memory, and among the most controversial. A seismic shift in U.S. fiscal policy, the bill ushers in significant tax cuts and Medicaid cuts, as well as increases to funding for immigration enforcement and the debt ceiling. The coverage and debate over the legislation have obscured arguably one of its most impactful components – the introduction of savings accounts for all children born in the U.S. over the next four years. The administration is calling these accounts 'Trump Accounts.' Title aside, this initiative has the potential to fundamentally change how – and how many – Americans invest for their children's futures. As believers in the power of long-term investing, I have long been a proponent of baby investment accounts (see: How Newborns Can Invest Like Warren Buffett). Here are the basics: While financial and tax experts may quibble with some of the provisions relative to other types of savings, the bill offers several clear benefits. Universality Education savings accounts already existed before Trump Accounts. State-based 529 plans offer tax-free accounts, but there are no federal contributions. 'Baby bonds' have been proposed and discussed for years, usually with means-tests and invested in bonds. Each of these types of plans would support some children with an education savings account. In contrast, every baby gets a Trump Account. The newborn's family does not have to be financially savvy or 'in the know' to make this happen. While a lack of a means test can be debated, it made passage in Congress a simpler task and will make the administration of these accounts much simpler. Strength of Public Equities Another distinctive feature of Trump Accounts is that they will be invested in equities, not bonds or a mix of investments, allowing all children with them to participate in the growth of the equity market. To get a rough sense of the numbers, let's model the outcome if this program had been implemented 18 years ago. If a baby born in 2006 had invested a $1,000 government contribution at the end of that year (not great timing, right before the Global Financial Crisis), they would have had almost $6,000 by their 18th birthday in 2024. That is substantially higher than the $1,575 they would have had if they had invested in 10-year Treasuries. Contributions from families and employers Beyond the initial $1,000, the option to add an additional $5,000 each year through a combination of parents' contributions or via their employers could end up being the secret to this initiative's success. Recall the earlier example of a child born in 2006. If they had not only received their initial $1,000 but also an additional $5,000 contribution each year, they would have had $360,000 by the time they turned 18 (not adjusted for inflation or rising costs over that timeframe). That amount of money is transformational, providing an ability to get an education without loans, buy a home, or save for a comfortable retirement down the road. And a financially strong cohort – particularly in the wake of a generation of Americans that are saving less, buying fewer homes, and having fewer children – would make the economy stronger in turn. The obvious criticism – and a fair one – is that not every family can afford to contribute $5,000 on a yearly basis. But could their employers contribute $2,500? That amount would mean the 18-year-old had roughly $185,000 – a life-changing number. And why stop there? Friends and extended family could make contributions as birthday gifts. State or local governments could also contribute to some or all of their newborns like California does through CalKIDS. What about philanthropic organizations in targeted areas? Making contributions a common practice would make the accounts more likely to achieve their purpose. The contributions will make all the difference. It's also one of the key areas for marketing. If the perception around 529 plans is any indication, there is a lot of work to do in this regard – May 2025 study from Edward Jones found that 52% of Americans don't know about 529 plans, and 38% feel they are not saving enough for their educational goals. With all the communications firepower of the White House, they'd be well-served to be talking up this program a lot more. The success of Trump Accounts will ultimately depend on whether families actually embrace them. Without active participation and better information and awareness, these accounts risk becoming little more than a short-lived handout. And they only are slated to apply to babies born by 2028. It remains to be seen if this administration, or the ones to come, will follow through and make this program thrive. But for the sake of the future of the next generation of Americans, I hope they do.
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Warnock, Durbin reintroduce voting rights bill named for John Lewis
Democratic Sens. Raphael Warnock (Ga.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.) are set to reintroduce the Senate version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025, which would replace the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The duo introduced a similar bill last year seeking to 'strengthen our democracy by reestablishing preclearance for jurisdictions with a pattern of voting rights violations, protecting minority communities subject to discriminatory voting practices, and defending election workers from threats and intimidation,' according to a press release. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) unveiled the House bill earlier this year. The legislation is named after the prominent civil rights activist and late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who died in 2020 at the age of 80. Their remarks are scheduled to begin at 12 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
