The Secret Non-Disparagement Clause: Inside the Explosive Settlement With a Former Swalwell Staffer

The document is brief, formal, and extremely detailed when it comes to the term “disparaging.” Buried in a settlement that a former Swalwell employee signed years ago, that one word is now accomplishing something that its drafters most likely could not have predicted. It’s dismantling a campaign.

Eric Swalwell’s team had been battling internet rumors like flies at a backyard cookout for weeks. Social media creators repeatedly implied that NDAs had silenced former female employees. The campaign’s reaction was remarkably uncompromising.

Key Information	Details
Subject	Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-California)
Role	U.S. Congressman, 15th Congressional District
Political Office	U.S. House of Representatives since 2013
Current Campaign	2026 California Gubernatorial Race
Reported Settlement	Workplace discrimination dispute, signed within the last five years
Document Terms	Confidentiality, non-disparagement, monetary component
Represented By	Swalwell’s Chief of Staff (per document)
Original Reporting	POLITICO, San Francisco Chronicle, CNN
Number of Accusers	One ex-staffer alleging assault; three additional women citing misconduct
Campaign Status	Co-chairs resigned; major endorsers including Nancy Pelosi called for exit
Denial Statement	“In 13 years, no one in Eric Swalwell’s Congressional office has ever been asked to sign an NDA. Ever.”
Response from Swalwell	Denies all allegations; threatens legal action

Not ambiguous, not cautious. An italicized, flat never. “No one in Eric Swalwell’s congressional office has ever been asked to sign an NDA in thirteen years. “Ever,” a campaign spokesperson stated, and the word “Ever” was actually capitalized in that way, as though challenging anyone to object. Someone retaliated.

After a dispute over workplace discrimination, a former employee—still anonymous and, according to their own account, still fearing reprisals—came forward to POLITICO with an agreement they had signed. They claimed it had nothing to do with sexual harassment. However, it included precisely the kinds of provisions that the campaign claimed were absent, requiring the signer to refrain from “voluntarily disseminating or publishing” anything “disparaging, threatening, defamatory, or negative” regarding their tenure.

Money was at stake. The negotiation process took months. It’s important to note that the individual listed on the Swalwell side of the documents was the Congressman’s chief of staff rather than the congressman himself.

The timing is striking. Prior to the campaign’s outright denial this week, the employee had reportedly been willing to live with the agreement. Observing something you were paid to keep quiet about being publicly erased can cause a certain kind of rage. “The former employee told POLITICO that “the ease and arrogance with which they lie made me want to come forward.”

Then Friday came. The Chronicle published an article about another former employee who claimed to have been sexually assaulted. CNN then featured three more women who described unwanted photos, explicit messages, and advances. The campaign was waning in a matter of hours. Representatives, both co-chairs. Swalwell was asked to leave by Jimmy Gomez and Adam Gray.

They were joined by Senators Schiff and Padilla. In an unusually candid statement, Ruben Gallego withdrew his endorsement and expressed regret for standing up for Swalwell earlier in the week. Uber and the California Medical Association contributed to the pro-Swalwell independent expenditure committee’s suspension of operations. Nancy Pelosi pointedly stated that she had already discussed leaving the race with him and demanded an investigation.

The accusations themselves are grave and continue to be reported. Citing the timing of the election, Swalwell denounces them as untrue and promises to provide evidence to support his claims. He is entitled to that. However, the non-disparagement clause is a different and more straightforward issue. Either this document exists, or the denial was true. It is impossible for both to be true simultaneously.

It’s difficult to ignore how frequently these stories revolve around what initially appears to be administrative paperwork. a settlement. a signature. A campaign finance report line item. These quiet documents, the majority of which remain silent forever, are the foundation of Washington. This one didn’t. It’s unclear yet if that marks the end of one man’s campaign or the start of something bigger.It’s obvious that “Ever” was the incorrect word to use.