There was uncertainty about whether the House Ethics Committee’s long-anticipated report concerning former Representative Matt Gaetz would be made public, especially after he abruptly resigned from Congress last month.

However, the report was released on Monday, revealing the accusations that led to Gaetz being disqualified during the Senate confirmation process for the position of attorney general under President-elect Donald Trump.

This committee, which comprises both Republicans and Democrats, made Gaetz one of the few ex-members whose Ethics Committee investigation findings were made public post-resignation.

The report indicated that substantial evidence was found against Gaetz, detailing allegations of “prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use,” and obstruction of Congress. This included claims that he paid for sexual activities with a 17-year-old, despite not inquiring about her age at that moment.

Though Gaetz has faced accusations of sexual misconduct before, attention intensified on the House Ethics Committee’s investigation after Trump’s nomination of Gaetz for the attorney general position in the forthcoming administration.

As senators were preparing to assess Gaetz’s nomination, they called for more insights into the allegations against him, with some Republican senators pushing for access to the report as details began to leak to the media. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., stated he would “strongly request” that the document remain confidential.

The committee convened to discuss the report’s release and split along party lines in November. Gaetz withdrew from consideration soon after. However, in a subsequent vote earlier this month, two Republican members discreetly sided with their Democratic counterparts to support the release.

The report noted, “Typically, the Committee does not publish its findings once it has lost jurisdiction over a case. However, there have been a few rare occasions where it was deemed in the public’s interest to disclose findings despite a member’s resignation. This is not a decision made lightly by the Committee.”

Here’s a summary of the committee’s choice to make the report public.

What precedents exist?

It’s quite uncommon for the House Ethics Committee to publish a report concerning a former member of Congress. This rarity means that resigning from Congress has often been seen as a method for controversial members to prevent the public from learning about their alleged misconduct.

Norm Eisen, former co-counsel to the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, explained this phenomenon: “This disincentivizes members from remaining in public service when there are ethics issues; they can avoid public scrutiny by stepping down.”

In a few exceptional instances, the committee has concluded that the matter warranted public release even when the lawmaker was no longer in office.

For instance, in 1987, shortly after former Rep. Bill Boner, D-Tenn., resigned to accept the mayoralty of Nashville, the committee released a report detailing his acceptance of bribes and misuse of campaign finances. Similarly, investigations continued regarding sexual harassment allegations against former Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y., who resigned in 2020, with the aim of discerning if other lawmakers had aided and abetted his inappropriate behavior.

What prompted the committee to release the findings?

Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., a committee member who voted to disclose the Gaetz report, emphasized to YSL News that it was vital for the report to be public since “the public has a right to know about such matters.”

He explained that in cases involving “relatively minor incidents,” the committee might choose not to release findings, but asserted: “This instance was far from minor.”

Ivey also highlighted the importance of this decision for other House members, as it sets expectations for their conduct.

“Our role as guardians of Congress is to inform our colleagues when their behavior crosses certain boundaries,” he remarked. “This guidance helps establish standards for future conduct.”

Some participants in the discussion argued that the panel was facing a different issue: a significant portion of the information had already been made public, leading to public speculation without the complete context.

According to Eisen, Gaetz and Trump “brought these issues to the forefront” by nominating him for attorney general. He remarked, “They opened Pandora’s Box, revealing certain details, which makes it challenging to shut it again.”

What was the opposition to releasing it?

Rep. Michael Guest, R-Miss., who chairs the Ethics Committee, wrote an addendum to the report outlining why several committee members opposed its release.

Guest and his fellow GOP colleagues “do not contest the committee’s conclusions,” he stated, but “strongly disagree” with the choice to stray from “long-standing protocols” and publish a report concerning an individual who is no longer in the House.

He argued that doing so is “exceptionally uncommon” and might be viewed as an effort to “weaponize” the committee’s investigation process. He suggested that making the report public was “a reckless move with potentially dire outcomes.”

What is Matt Gaetz’s position?

Gaetz has consistently asserted his innocence while questioning the Ethics Committee’s reliability. On Monday, he shared a series of posts on X that included snippets of witness statements which he claimed contradicted the committee’s conclusions.

He wrote, “Providing funds to someone you are dating – which they did not request – and which isn’t ‘payment’ for sex is now considered prostitution?!?” He emphasized his belief that the committee’s actions were timed to occur just before Christmas to avoid a court setting where he could defend himself and cross-examine witnesses.

The former Florida GOP representative made a last-minute effort in federal court on Monday to stop the committee from releasing its findings, arguing that the committee was overstepping its authority. However, after seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the report’s release, the judge asked Gaetz to explain the relevance of the case once the documents were made public.

By Monday evening, Gaetz’s legal team filed a document acknowledging that he “has not suffered any irreversible and profound harm” and agreed with the judge that urgent intervention was no longer necessary.