Can congressional pension benefits be revoked for misconduct or criminal convictions and has that been applied to any members?

1. What the law currently allows: targeted pension loss for listed felonies

Congress has not left pensions entirely untouched: HLOGA ^[4] created pension‑forfeiture for certain offenses and the STOCK Act ^[5] expanded the catalog of federal crimes that can trigger loss of congressional “creditable service” for pension calculations; a final felony conviction for those listed offenses can deprive a member of the pension credit earned while serving ^{[1] [6]}. The Congressional Research Service explains these provisions and their statutory limits, including that forfeiture applies to specific corruption, election, and misconduct statutes named in the law ^[1].

2. The practical limit: “final conviction” and long appeals keep pensions flowing

A major practical limitation is that current law generally requires a final conviction—after appeals are exhausted—before pension credit is denied. That means members convicted in trial courts frequently continue to receive pension payments while appeals run, a gap critics have called a loophole ^{[1] [2]}. National Taxpayers Union and other watchdogs have documented that, despite the 2007 and 2012 reforms, convicted former members have not been stripped of pensions in practice because of this appeals timing ^[2].

3. Has it actually been applied to any members? Reporting says no

Multiple reviews and advocacy pieces conclude that, although lawmakers have been charged or convicted in cases that potentially fall within the law, enforcement of pension forfeiture has not resulted in anyone actually losing a pension payment under the HLOGA/STOCK framework as documented by watchdog groups ^[2]. EveryCRSReport and related analyses describe the statutory mechanism but also note the constitutional (ex post facto) and procedural constraints that limit retroactive or expansive application ^[1].

4. Ongoing reforms and political responses: bills to broaden or accelerate forfeiture

There has been bipartisan momentum to expand or accelerate pension loss when members betray the public trust. Proposals have included the No CORRUPTION Act and other bills to suspend or terminate pensions at sentencing (rather than awaiting the exhaustion of appeals) and to add more offenses—like felony sexual misconduct—to the list of disqualifying crimes ^{[3] [7] [8]}. Sponsors of these bills framed them as fixes to “loopholes” that allow convicted officials to collect pensions during long appeal periods ^{[3] [8]}.

5. Recent legislative and political developments change timing but raise disputes

Advocates reported passage or movement of measures intended to close the appeals loophole—e.g., reporting that a “No CORRUPTION” measure passed a chamber and that reforms in 2024–2025 were aimed at suspending pension payments upon conviction or sentencing. Watchdog groups hailed these as victories to “suspend” pensions immediately after conviction rather than after appeal exhaustion, but confirmatory details and implementation questions remain discussed in reportage ^{[9] [10]}. Some sources frame these steps as bipartisan; others emphasize constitutional and procedural concerns about retroactive penalties ^{[1] [7]}.

6. Why removal remains politically and legally fraught

Two constraints shape any pension‑forfeiture policy: constitutional limits on retroactive punishment (ex post facto) and statutory definitions of covered offenses. The CRS and related analyses underscore that new penalties cannot be applied retroactively to conduct that predated the law, and that Congress must precisely define which convictions trigger pension loss ^[1]. Politically, members who propose stricter rules also sometimes back narrower measures (or targeted bills for expelled members), reflecting competing agendas about accountability versus due process and legal certainty ^{[11] [12]}.

7. What readers should watch next

Track whether Congress adopts measures that (a) expand the list of disqualifying crimes, or (b) change the trigger from “final conviction” to a court judgment or sentencing suspension—because those two changes would materially change when and how pensions are stopped ^{[3] [7]}. Also watch official enforcement and OPM disclosures, since watchdogs have complained about lack of transparency around whether and when pension forfeitures are implemented ^{[2] [13]}.

Limitations and closing note: available sources do not mention any specific instance where a Member of Congress has actually lost pension payments under the HLOGA/STOCK forfeiture rules; advocates assert reforms to accelerate suspension have been proposed or passed but implementation details and legal challenges persist ^{[2] [9] [10]}.