Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), known to many simply as AOC, is facing heat again; this time not for what she said, but for how she played the rules.
Last week, the House Ethics Committee issued a public rebuke over how AOC handled her relationship with longtime partner Riley Roberts.
The issue? She’s been calling him her “spouse” when it benefits her but avoiding that label when it comes to financial transparency.
NEW: The House Ethics Committee has rebuked @AOC for simultaneously claiming her longtime partner, Riley Roberts, is and isn’t her “spouse.”
This has allowed AOC to grant her “spouse” special perks and freebies while also shielding his financial affairs from the public.
— Andrew Kerr (@AndrewKerrNC) August 4, 2025
This all started back in 2021 when AOC attended the fancy Met Gala in New York. That’s the same event where tickets can cost as much as $35,000 each.
She brought Roberts along, labeling him her “spouse” on the official paperwork to get the invite. Later, in a May 2025 letter to the Ethics Committee, her lawyer said Roberts wasn’t her spouse – at least not in a way that would trigger the required financial disclosures for congressional spouses.
So which is it?
Turns out, federal rules allow for some wiggle room. The law doesn’t clearly define what counts as a “spouse.” Is it someone you’re legally married to? Or just someone you live with and share expenses?
AOC seems to have taken advantage of this gray area.
According to the Committee’s report, she used the “spouse” label to give Roberts access to perks (like a congressional “Spouse Pin” and travel benefits for a 2023 trip to Japan and South Korea) but ducked out of the financial reporting required for legally married partners.
That’s a big deal when you consider that other lawmakers’ spouses must disclose assets, debts, and stock trades.
The Ethics Committee’s report noted AOC “was seeking to take advantage of exceptions to the Gift Rule only applicable to spouses and/or certain relatives.”
For now, the Committee hasn’t issued formal punishment. AOC paid back some of the costs for the Met Gala, like $3,000 for the dress rental and $250 for Roberts’ meal, but the rebuke stands as a warning.
This isn’t just about one lawmaker, either. A 2023 study published in the American Political Science Review found that about 15% of ethics violations in Congress involved similar slippery definitions of personal relationships. One of the most well-known cases was Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who was censured in 2010 after failing to disclose rental income and financial ties involving family.
What makes AOC’s case more troubling is her public push for new rules banning congressional spouses from stock trading. If her partner isn’t officially a spouse, he wouldn’t be covered under the same law she’s trying to push for everyone else.
That doesn’t sit well with folks who expect lawmakers to follow the rules they want to make for others.
Transparency in politics isn’t a red-state or blue-state issue; it’s a trust issue.
Nevada voters have watched politicians bend the rules for years. We’ve seen it in how voter ID laws are treated differently across the country. We’ve seen it when local and state officials get special exemptions while pushing regulations on everyone else.
In a state like Nevada, where public confidence in government is already shaky, stories like this just make it worse. Nevadans have every right to expect that if lawmakers want special privileges (like bringing a plus-one to a $35,000 event) they should be willing to show who’s paying the bills and who’s influencing their decisions.
To be fair, AOC’s defenders say she’s done nothing illegal and that the system itself is flawed. They argue the definition of “spouse” should be updated to reflect modern relationships.
Critics say that’s no excuse for using a loophole to score free perks and dodge the rules.
As of August 5, 2025, there’s no sign that AOC and Roberts are legally married. They got engaged in 2022 but haven’t tied the knot. They still live together and were seen recently in New York.
For now the Ethics Committee’s rebuke doesn’t carry legal weight, but the political fallout may grow, especially if new facts come out about Roberts’ finances or influence.
In a time when the public is demanding more accountability from elected officials, this story serves as another reminder that even those who preach the loudest about ethics can also quietly play both sides of the system.
