Former Senator Sinema Admits to Relationship with Married Security Guard in Federal Court Testimony

Former United States Senator Kyrsten Sinema has acknowledged under oath that she engaged in a sexual relationship with a married member of her security detail while serving in office, according to federal court documents filed in recent weeks.

The admission came during a July 31 deposition in connection with a lawsuit brought against Sinema by Heather Ammel, the former wife of Matthew Ammel, who served as the senator’s security guard. Mrs. Ammel alleges that Sinema’s conduct directly led to the dissolution of her 14-year marriage.

The lawsuit was filed in North Carolina under that state’s alienation-of-affection statute, one of the few remaining laws of its kind in the nation. These statutes, which exist in only a handful of states, allow a spouse to seek damages from a third party who allegedly interfered with a marriage.

Sinema, who represented Arizona in the Senate until leaving office at the beginning of last year, transitioned from the Democratic Party to independent status during her tenure. She remains unmarried.

According to court filings, Sinema testified that her relationship with Matthew Ammel began physically around Memorial Day of the year in question. The nature of this relationship, involving a sitting senator and a member of her security detail, raises questions about professional boundaries and the potential complications inherent in such arrangements.

Sinema’s legal team has mounted a vigorous defense, moving the case from North Carolina state court to federal jurisdiction. Her attorneys subsequently filed motions seeking dismissal of the entire matter, arguing on two principal grounds.

First, they contend that the relationship occurred outside North Carolina’s borders, potentially limiting the applicability of that state’s alienation-of-affection law. Second, they assert that the federal court lacks personal jurisdiction over Sinema, a procedural argument that, if successful, would end the case regardless of its merits.

The legal maneuvering reflects the complexity of applying state-specific tort laws across jurisdictional boundaries, particularly when federal officials are involved. The outcome may hinge on technical questions of where the alleged conduct occurred and whether North Carolina courts have sufficient connection to the parties involved.

Alienation-of-affection laws have long been controversial, with critics arguing they are outdated remnants of an era when spouses were treated as property. Supporters maintain they provide recourse for genuine harm caused by third-party interference in marriages.

As this case proceeds through the federal system, it serves as a reminder of the personal and professional complications that can arise when public officials become involved with members of their staff or security details. The matter also highlights the continuing existence of legal frameworks that allow civil remedies for marital interference, even as such laws have been abolished in most states.

The case remains pending in federal court, with rulings on the jurisdictional questions expected in the coming months.