Seventy-one-year-old California Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman is facing a primary challenge from filmmaker and journalist Anna Wilding ahead of next year’s midterm race, and the race shifted after photographs surfaced showing the congressman looking at images of scantily clad women on a flight.

The episode is now fueling questions about judgment and fitness for office as Republicans and critics press the issue. Voters in his district expect representatives to act with basic decorum, and images like these make it harder for anyone to defend his behavior. This story has become a fresh point of attack for those who already saw Sherman as vulnerable.

Photographs shared on social platforms show Sherman staring at an electronic device displaying women in what appears to be lingerie. The images were posted by a social media account and quickly spread, prompting sharp reactions from both constituents and political operatives. The optics are bad and they landed right as the primary fight is heating up.

Sherman responded publicly, telling Punchbowl News cofounder John Bresnahan that he did not intentionally seek out the images and that he encountered them while scrolling his X feed. He added, “If I see a picture of a woman, might I look at it longer than a sunset? Yeah,” and he acknowledged the conduct was inappropriate. Those words underline a defensive posture that did not satisfy many skeptics.

The reaction from national political figures was swift and blunt, with some condemning the behavior in plain terms. White House director of communications Steven Cheung posted a close-up image of Sherman and called him “a total gooner.” That kind of language signals how damaging this is in the court of public opinion.

Beyond the plane incident, Sherman has faced controversy around his office before, which makes this hit feel cumulative. In 2017 reporting detailed allegations that a longtime aide engaged in sexual harassment while staffers described a toxic workplace environment. Those prior complaints feed into a narrative that some voters and critics say deserves scrutiny.

A former staffer was quoted saying, “Congressman Sherman showed zero interest in the personal well-being of his staffers and there’s no reason to believe he would have cared or taken any action if a complaint was made.” That allegation reflects deeper concerns about leadership and accountability that go beyond a single embarrassing photograph. When staffers feel ignored, it matters to constituents hoping for ethical representation.

The aide at the center of earlier reports later won election to the California State Assembly but resigned amid additional harassment accusations. Reporting at the time included claims of unwelcome behavior and alleged misconduct, which amplified questions about oversight in Sherman’s office. Those history points make the current episode harder to dismiss as an isolated lapse.

For Republicans watching, the incident provides both political ammunition and a chance to press for higher standards. Campaigns thrive on clear contrasts, and this story helps frame Sherman as a 30-year incumbent out of step with basic expectations. Challengers will use the moment to argue the district deserves fresh representation with better judgment.

Voters who care about professionalism and workplace culture are likely to see this episode through the lens of past allegations as well as the immediate visuals. Accountability is about patterns, not single events, and opponents will point to the sequence of issues in Sherman’s record. Every new image or quote becomes another data point in that narrative.

Sherman’s acknowledgment that his behavior was inappropriate may calm some, but others want tangible consequences or answers about his judgment. The campaign atmosphere will now include renewed scrutiny of his record, staff practices, and how he conducts himself in public and private settings. Those are the sorts of questions primary challengers will press with vigor.

As the primary unfolds, this flap will be measured against broader themes voters care about, including trust, character, and competence. For any incumbent, especially one with decades in office, scandals that stack up tend to change the political calculation for both moderate and conservative voters. This episode will not vanish quickly in a high-stakes election cycle.