Washington D.C. (Special to ZennieReport.com) – The House Ethics Committee finally made its report on the investigation of U.S. Congressman Matt Gaetz public. What follows is the raw text from the report, copied and pasted here faithfully, as was presented in the downloaded file. To preserve authenticity, no alteration to the file download was made.
In accordance with House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b), the Committee on Ethics
(Committee) hereby submits the following Report to the House of Representatives, including the
Views of Chairman Guest on behalf of the dissenting Committee Members:
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 9, 2021, the Committee announced it was investigating a series of widely reported
allegations relating to Representative Matt Gaetz. At the request of the Department of Justice
(DOJ), the Committee deferred its review during the 117th Congress. After it was organized for
the 118th Congress, the Committee reauthorized its investigation into the allegations involving
Representative Gaetz. Specifically, the Committee undertook a review of allegations that
Representative Gaetz may have: engaged in sexual misconduct and/or illicit drug use; shared
inappropriate images or videos on the House floor; misused state identification records; converted
campaign funds to personal use; and/or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift.
In June 2024, following extensive factfinding, the Committee determined to continue its review of
the allegations of sexual misconduct, illicit drug use, and acceptance of impermissible gifts and
expanded its review to include allegations that Representative Gaetz may have dispensed special
privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship and obstructed
government investigations into his conduct. At that time, the Committee determined to take no
further action on the allegations relating to the House floor, state identification records, personal
use of campaign funds, and acceptance of a bribe or gratuity.
On November 14, 2024, Representative Gaetz resigned from the House, after the President-
Elect announced his intention to nominate Representative Gaetz for the position of United States
Attorney General. As a result of Representative Gaetz’s resignation, the Committee lost
jurisdiction to continue its investigation. Representative Gaetz subsequently withdrew from
consideration for the position of Attorney General; at this time, he has not announced any intent
to seek higher office or return to Congress.
2
The Committee has typically not released its findings after losing jurisdiction in a matter.1
However, there are a few prior instances where the Committee has determined that it was in the
public interest to release its findings even after a Member’s resignation from Congress.2 The
Committee does not do so lightly. In this instance, although several Committee Members objected,
a majority of the Members of the Committee agreed that the Committee’s findings should be
released to the public.
In sum, the Committee found substantial evidence of the following:
- From at least 2017 to 2020, Representative Gaetz regularly paid women for
engaging in sexual activity with him. - In 2017, Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl.
- During the period 2017 to 2019, Representative Gaetz used or possessed illegal
drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, on multiple occasions. - Representative Gaetz accepted gifts, including transportation and lodging in
connection with a 2018 trip to the Bahamas, in excess of permissible amounts. - In 2018, Representative Gaetz arranged for his Chief of Staff to assist a woman
with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating
to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent. - Representative Gaetz knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the
Committee’s investigation of his conduct. - Representative Gaetz has acted in a manner that reflects discreditably upon the
House.
Based on the above, the Committee concluded there was substantial evidence that Representative
Gaetz violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting
prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of
special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress.
The Committee did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Representative Gaetz
violated the federal sex trafficking statute. Although Representative Gaetz did cause the
transportation of women across state lines for purposes of commercial sex, the Committee did not
find evidence that any of those women were under 18 at the time of travel, nor did the Committee
find sufficient evidence to conclude that the commercial sex acts were induced by force, fraud, or
coercion.
1 See, e.g., Statements of the Chair and Ranking Member in the Matters of Representative Jeff Fortenberry (Apr. 1,
2022), Duncan Hunter (Jan. 14, 2020), Chris Collins (Oct. 1, 2019), Chaka Fattah (June, 24, 2016), Henry “Trey”
Radel (Jan. 29, 2014).
2 See, e.g., Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Daniel J. Flood, H. Rept. 96-
856, 96th Cong., 2d. Sess. (1980); Staff Report of the Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of
Representative Donald E. Lukens (1990); Staff Report of the Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter
of Representative William H. Boner (1987).
3
Representative Gaetz was uncooperative throughout the Committee’s review. He provided
minimal documentation in response to the Committee’s requests. He also did not agree to a
voluntary interview. On July 11, 2024, the Committee issued a subpoena to Representative Gaetz
for his testimony. He did not appear, despite having received notice of the date and time of the
deposition. The Committee then sent Representative Gaetz a set of written questions, to which he
issued a public response that ignored most of the direct questions about his misconduct and
mischaracterized the Committee’s investigation and his participation up to that point. Despite
Representative Gaetz’s claims to the contrary, the Committee’s singular mission is to protect the
integrity of the House. When faced with serious public allegations against a Member, the
Committee will often investigate, and when such allegations are false, the Committee has a shared
goal with the respondent to disprove those allegations.
While the Committee considered whether to establish an investigative subcommittee to
consider sanctions against Representative Gaetz, the Committee ultimately determined that it
would not risk the further victimization of the women involved in this matter. Most of the women
with whom the Committee spoke also gave statements to DOJ and urged the Committee to rely on
those statements in lieu of requiring them to relive their experience. They were particularly
concerned with providing additional testimony about a sitting congressman in light of DOJ’s lack
of action on their prior testimony. DOJ refused to provide the relevant statements and other
significant evidence to the Committee. DOJ cited internal policies about protecting uncharged
subjects like Representative Gaetz, general concerns about how DOJ’s cooperation with the
Committee may deter other victims in other matters, and various inapposite policies relating to
congressional oversight of DOJ itself. DOJ’s initial deferral request and subsequent lack of
cooperation with the Committee’s review caused significant delays in the investigation; those
delays were compounded by Representative Gaetz’s obstructive efforts. The Committee has
determined that its findings must be released without further impediments.
Accordingly, on December 10, 2024, the Committee voted on whether to release this
Report; although several Members did not support its release, a majority of the Members voted in
favor of its release.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 9, 2021, the Committee publicly announced it was investigating allegations
relating to Representative Gaetz, including whether he may have: engaged in sexual misconduct
and/or illicit drug use; shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor; misused state
identification records; converted campaign funds to personal use; and/or accepted a bribe,
improper gratuity, or impermissible gift.3 Shortly thereafter, DOJ requested that the Committee
defer all investigation of Representative Gaetz. The Committee did so.
3 Comm. on Ethics, Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding
Representative Matt Gaetz (Apr. 9, 2021), https://ethics.house.gov/press-releases/statement-chairman-and-ranking-
member-committee-ethics-regarding-representative-22. The Committee’s well-established precedent is to publicly
announce its investigations when there are public allegations of sexual misconduct. See, e.g., Comm. on Ethics,
Statement of the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative John
Conyers, Jr. (Nov. 21, 2017), https://ethics.house.gov/press-release/statement-chairwoman-and-ranking-member-
4
In February 2023, after the Committee asked DOJ for an update on its deferral request,
public reports indicated that DOJ had informed Representative Gaetz and multiple witnesses that
the congressman would not be charged in connection with the investigation. Shortly thereafter,
DOJ informed the Committee it was no longer requesting a deferral. The Chairman and Ranking
Member reauthorized the matter in May of 2023 in accordance with Committee Rule 18(a).4
On June 18, 2024, the Committee announced that the scope of the inquiry would focus on
allegations of sexual misconduct, illicit drug use, acceptance of improper gifts, dispensation of
special privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and
obstruction of government investigations. At that time, the Committee also stated it would not
continue to investigate allegations of sharing inappropriate images or videos on the House floor,
misusing state identification records, converting campaign funds to personal use, and accepting a
bribe or improper gratuity.
The Chairman and Ranking Member sent nine requests for information and six Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests.5 The Committee also authorized 29 subpoenas for documents
and testimony, reviewed nearly 14,000 documents, and contacted more than two dozen witnesses.
The Committee also received sworn written responses from an associate of Representative Gaetz,
Joel Greenberg; as discussed further below, however, the Committee determined that, due to
committee-ethics-regarding-representative-jo-1; Comm. on Ethics, Statement of the Chairwoman and Ranking
Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative Ruben Kihuen (Dec. 15, 2017),
https://ethics.house.gov/press-release/statement-chairwoman-and-ranking-member-committee-ethics-regarding-
representative-8; Comm. on Ethics, Statement of the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics
Regarding Representative Patrick Meehan (Jan. 22, 2018), https://ethics.house.gov/press-release/statement-
chairwoman-and-ranking-member-committee-ethics-regarding-representative-12; Comm. on Ethics, Statement of
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding Delegate Michael F.Q. San Nicolas (Oct.
24, 2019), https://ethics.house.gov/press-releases/statement-chairman-and-ranking-member-committee-ethics-
regarding-delegate-michael-f-q; Comm. on Ethics, Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Member Regarding
Representative Katie Hill (Oct. 23, 2019), https://ethics.house.gov/press-releases/statement-chairman-and-ranking-
member-committee-ethics-regarding-representative-katie; Comm. on Ethics, Statement of the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative Alcee Hastings (Nov. 14, 2019),
https://ethics.house.gov/press-releases/statement-chairman-and-ranking-member-committee-ethics-regarding-
representative-alcee; Comm. on Ethics, Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on
Ethics Regarding Representative Tom Reed (Apr. 9, 2021), https://ethics.house.gov/press-releases/statement-
chairman-and-ranking-member-committee-ethics-regarding-representative-tom.
4 The Committee typically reauthorizes unresolved matters at the start of a new Congress. It is also the Committee’s
longstanding practice to continue a deferred investigation after DOJ concludes a parallel review, even where DOJ
declined to press charges. See Comm. on Ethics, Summary of Activities for the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, H.
Rept. 115-1125, 115th Cong., 2d Sess. 35 (2019) (noting the Committee deferred its investigation at the request of
law enforcement and that the Committee had not closed its review of Representative Robert Pittenger after DOJ
ended its investigation into the congressman); Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Vernon G. Buchanan, H. Rept. 114-643, 114th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (2016) (noting that the matter was
“the subject of review by four different entities – the Committee, [Office of Congressional Ethics], [Federal Election
Commission], and the Department of Justice” and that the DOJ investigation concluded in 2012); cf. id at 27 (noting
that the Committee would not defer to decisions by other law enforcement agencies, including DOJ).
5 Initially, the Chairman and Ranking Member sent only two voluntary requests for information, including the one to
Representative Gaetz. After it became clear that Representative Gaetz was not cooperating in good faith, the
Committee sought information from additional sources.
5
credibility issues, it would not rely exclusively on information provided by Mr. Greenberg in
making any findings.
Shortly after DOJ withdrew its deferral request and the Committee reauthorized its review,
the Committee sent DOJ a request for information. After three months without a response despite
repeated follow up, the Committee submitted FOIA requests to several relevant DOJ offices, which
to date have not been adequately processed.6 The Committee continued to reach out to DOJ
throughout 2023, having still not received a substantive response to its request for information.
On January 12, 2024, the Committee received its first correspondence from DOJ on the matter. At
that time, DOJ provided no substantive response or explanation for its delay; instead, DOJ simply
stated that it “do[es] not provide non-public information about law enforcement investigations that
do not result in charges.”7 This “policy” is, however, inconsistent with DOJ’s historical conduct
with respect to the Committee and its unique role in upholding the integrity of the House.8
Thereafter, the Committee determined to issue a subpoena to DOJ to obtain records relating
to its investigation of Representative Gaetz. DOJ did not comply with the subpoena by the date
required, but suggested it remained “committed to good-faith engagement with the Committee.”9
In the spirit of cooperation, the Committee provided a list of specific responsive documents, setting
6 The U.S. Attorney’s Office affirmatively declined the Committee’s FOIA request as “categorically exempt from
disclosure.” However, the reasons cited for not disclosing responsive records are not applicable to the Committee’s
request—it did not consider the special access granted to Congress pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 522(8)(d) (stating that
FOIA “is not an authority to withhold information from Congress” even when an exemption may otherwise be
implicated), nor did it consider the overriding public interest exception, which has been applied to information that
would inform the public about proven violations of public trust (see, e.g., Columbia Packing Co., Inc v. Department
of Agriculture, 564 F.3d 495, 499 (1st Cir. 1977) (federal employees found guilty of accepting bribes);
Congressional News Syndicate v. Department of Justice, 438 F. Supp. 538, 544 (D.D.C. 1977) (misconduct by
White House staffers)).
7 Letter from U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, to Chairman Michael Guest and Ranking Member
Susan Wild, Committee on Ethics (Jan. 12, 2024).
8 Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative Don Young, H. Rept. 113-487, 113th Cong., 2d Sess. (2014)
(hereinafter Young) (discussing information and documents provided to the Committee by DOJ relating to a Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation of Representative Young); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In
the Matter of Representative James McDermott, H. Rept. 109-732, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (2006) (hereinafter
McDermott) (noting that the investigative subcommittee requested and obtained documents from DOJ regarding its
investigation of the matter); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Jay Kim, H.
Rept. 105-797, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. 79 (1998) (noting the FBI provided “valuable assistance to the Investigative
Subcommittee throughout its inquiry.”); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation Pursuant to House
Resolution 12 Concerning Alleged Illicit Use or Distribution of Drugs by Members, Officers, or Employees of the
House, H. Rept. 98-559, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 21 (1983) (“the Special Counsel and the Attorney General entered
into an agreement whereby the Department was to provide the Committee non-privileged results of the
Department’s drug investigation, provided that access to the material was restricted to certain named individuals and
that certain security precautions were taken.”); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of
Representative Raymond F. Lederer, H. Rept. 97-110, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981); Comm. on Standards of Official
Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Michael J. Myers, H. Rept. 96-1387, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980); Comm.
on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative John W. Jenrette, Jr., H. Rept. 96-1537, 96th
Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1980) (noting the Special Counsel and DOJ entered into an agreement “covering the receipt of
confidential information in respect to the investigation” into a Member who was a subject of DOJ investigations
known as ABSCAM).
9 Letter from U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, to Chairman Michael Guest and Ranking Member
Susan Wild, Committe
28
opportunity for Representative Gaetz to answer questions about and respond to the allegations.116
In that letter, the Committee appended a fulsome list of allegations involving Representative Gaetz,
to ensure his awareness of all allegations before the Committee. On May 24, 2024, Representative
Gaetz responded to the Committee’s letter. He demanded the Committee investigate “leaks” to
the press prior to him submitting for an interview and argued (incorrectly) that the Committee
could not subpoena his testimony unless it impaneled an investigative subcommittee.117 He also
referred to “voluminous documentary evidence” he produced to the Committee that he claimed
showed his innocence and categorically denied all the allegations.
On June 17, 2024, the Committee informed Representative Gaetz that it would be both
expanding and narrowing the scope of its investigation into allegations involving him. The letter
also requested evidence that DOJ had “exonerated” him,118 any records previously produced to
DOJ, and any other documents he believed the Committee should have already received
comprising the “voluminous” evidence he claimed to have provided. Finally, the letter reiterated
the Committee’s request that Representative Gaetz appear for a voluntary interview and reminded
him that, pursuant to Committee Rule 10(a), it would consider whether to use compulsory process
to obtain his testimony.
Representative Gaetz responded on June 24, 2024, stating that he would need additional
time to review “over ten thousand records” he had previously submitted to DOJ.119 He also
reiterated his requests that the Committee provide him with confidential information about its
investigative sources, as well as regarding any investigation of disclosures in the press. He then
publicly called the Committee’s investigation “frivolous” and said it was an “obvious fact that
116 The letter also noted that, should Representative Gaetz not submit to a voluntary interview, the Committee may
use its compulsory process to obtain his testimony. See Committee Rule 10(a)(1).
117 The Committee’s subpoena authority is not related to whether it establishes an investigative subcommittee, which
is only one procedural path for investigation by the Committee. See House Rule XI, cl. 2(m); Committee Rule
10(a)(1); see also, e.g., Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Delegate Michael F. Q. San
Nicolas, H. Rept. 117-387, 117th Cong., 2d Sess. (2022) (hereinafter San Nicolas) (ISC issued a subpoena after the
Delegate declined a voluntary interview and did not meaningfully respond to several opportunities to provide a
written statement to address the allegations against him); Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Laura Richardson, H. Rept. 112-642, 112th Cong., 2d Sess. (2012) (hereinafter Richardson); Comm. on Standards
of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Charles B. Rangel, H. Rept. 111-161, 111th Cong., 2d Sess.
(2010) (Member agreed to voluntarily produce documents after staff informed him the Committee issued a subpoena
and the subpoena was not served); McDermott; Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of
Allegations Related to Improper Conduct Involving Members and Current or Former House Pages, H. Rept. 109-
733, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. (2006) (subpoenas served to preserve documents at the outset of the investigation, rather
than compel production of documents); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of Certain
Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, H.
Rept. 108-722, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (2004) (subpoenaing Representative Nick Smith, the only Member in the
investigation who declined to voluntarily interview); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of
Representative E.G. “Bud” Shuster, H. Rept. 106-979, 106th Cong., 2d Sess. at 94-98 (2000); Comm. on Standards
of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Barbara-Rose Collins, H. Rept. 104-876, 104th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1997). Furthermore, an investigative subcommittee is not the most common process through which the Committee
conducts its investigations; most Committee investigations are conducted pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), as in
this matter.
118 See Section II supra (regarding DOJ’s non-cooperation with the Committee).
119 Representative Gaetz did not explain in his letter why he has not produced those 10,000 records to the Committee
despite having been informed of the Committee’s reauthorized investigation more than a year prior.29
every investigation into me ends the same way: my exoneration.”120 Representative Gaetz
ultimately produced some additional documents to the Committee through early September,
although it is not clear how many of those documents had been previously produced to DOJ. The
Committee also invited Representative Gaetz to clarify the relevancy of the records he produced,
most of which did not appear to be responsive to the Committee’s request, to which he stated only
that he was prioritizing the evidence that most clearly proved his innocence. Representative Gaetz
also falsely stated in a letter to the Committee, which he shared in a public social media post, that
he had “voluntarily produced tens of thousands of records.” To the contrary, Representative Gaetz
provided only a couple hundred records, more than 90 percent of which was either irrelevant or
publicly available. Despite multiple extensions from the Committee to review and produce
responsive records from the “ten thousand” he claimed he would review, Representative Gaetz
ultimately declared he would “no longer cooperate” with the Committee in the public letter.121
The Committee also reviewed allegations that Representative Gaetz may have sought to
tamper with witness testimony in connection with its investigation or the DOJ’s investigation.
DOJ refused to provide a copy of an audio recording in which Representative Gaetz discussed the
DOJ’s inquiry with one of the women he paid for sex.
While the Committee did not find documentary evidence that Representative Gaetz directly
acted to prevent any woman from testifying before DOJ or the Committee, some women cited a
fear of retaliation from the congressman when declining to speak on the record with the
Committee.
120 @FmrRepMattGaetz, X (formerly Twitter) (June 17, 2024, 4:41 PM),
https://twitter.com/FmrRepMattGaetz/status/1802803825826304266. DOJ did not characterize the closure of their
investigation into Representative Gaetz as an “exoneration” to the Committee. Representative Gaetz has also
repeatedly claimed that “there are exactly zero credible (or even non-credible) accusers willing to come forward by
name and state on the public record that I behaved improperly toward them.” April 5 Washington Examiner Article;
see also Jake Tapper, Rep. Matt Gaetz on Efforts to Oust House Speaker, CNN, at 6:10 (May 6, 2024),
https://cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/05/06/the-lead-matt-gaetz-speaker-johnson-oust-niger-troops-jake-tapper.cnn
(calling the allegations an “urban legend”); April 6 Politico Article. However, DOJ’s investigation involved grand
jury hearings, during which many of the women that the Committee contacted or interviewed testified, in addition to
conducting depositions under penalty of perjury with the Committee.
121 @FmrRepMattGaetz, September 26 X Post. Representative Gaetz also provided a copy of the letter and its
attachments to the Committee after having made his post public.30
V. FINDINGS
A. The Committee Found Representative Gaetz Violated State Laws Related to Sexual
Misconduct
1. The Committee Did Not Find that Representative Gaetz Violated Federal Sex
Trafficking Laws
The Committee did not obtain substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated
federal sex trafficking laws. Transportation of an individual for purposes of commercial sex could
violate such laws if the individual was a minor, or if the sexual activity occurred through force,
fraud, or coercion.
Representative Gaetz was alleged in news reports to have paid a minor to engage in sexual
activity and travel with him on a trip to the Bahamas in September 2018. However, the youngest
person who traveled with him and his associates was 18 years old at the time of the trip. Further,
she and the other women who attended the Bahamas trip did not recall being paid for sexual
activity on that occasion. One woman testified that she was not paid for sex on the trip, although
she did have sex with Representative Gaetz, because “the trip itself was more so the payment.”122
As discussed above, there is evidence that Representative Gaetz paid women to travel to
New York and Washington, D.C. for commercial sex. At the time, each of the women was over
the age of 18. While Representative Gaetz’s relationship with these women involved an
exploitative power imbalance, the Committee does not have reason to believe that he used force,
fraud, or coercion as those terms apply under the applicable laws.
2. The Committee Found that Representative Gaetz Engaged in Commercial Sex
There is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz paid women for sex, and had others
pay women for sex on his behalf. The Committee heard testimony from over half a dozen
witnesses who attended parties, events, and trips with Representative Gaetz from 2017-2020.
Nearly every young woman that the Committee interviewed confirmed that she was paid for sex
by, or on behalf of, Representative Gaetz. A few of the women characterized their relationship
differently, describing a date-for-hire arrangement that may not necessarily implicate state
prostitution laws. Even assuming the payments to those particular women would not violate
prostitution laws, the Committee found evidence that Representative Gaetz spent tens of thousands
of dollars on other women with whom he had a shared understanding that they would be
compensated for sexual activity with him. There were potentially additional amounts spent on
commercial sex that could not be specifically identified either because payments were made in
cash or through intermediaries. The Committee’s record thus indicates that Representative Gaetz
enticed and procured women to engage in sexual activity for hire and purchased the services of
women engaging in sexual activity for hire, in violation of Florida state law.
122 18(a) Interview of Woman 5.31
Representative Gaetz refused to answer the Committee’s questions about his payments to
women, despite opportunities to do so in sworn testimony or in writing. While he has been
unwilling to address the allegations under oath, Representative Gaetz has made several public
statements regarding the allegations under the Committee’s review, including that his “generosity
to ex-girlfriends” is being misconstrued and that he has “never, ever paid for sex.” The Committee
found this to be untrue.
Members are required to uphold the laws of the United States and all governments therein,
and never be a party to their evasion.123 Through his violations of state prostitution laws,
Representative Gaetz acted contrary to this ethical obligation.124 Representative Gaetz took
advantage of the economic vulnerability of young women to lure them into sexual activity for
which they received an average of a few hundred dollars after each encounter. Such behavior is
not “generosity to ex-girlfriends,” and it does not reflect creditably upon the House. The
Committee thus found Representative Gaetz to be in violation of House Rule XXIII, clause 1.
3. The Committee Found that Representative Gaetz Violated Florida’s Statutory
Rape Law
There is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a
17-year-old girl. The Committee received credible testimony from Victim A herself, as well as
multiple individuals corroborating the allegation. Several of those witnesses have also testified
under oath before a federal grand jury and in a civil litigation. Representative Gaetz denied the
allegation but refused to testify under oath. He has publicly stated that Victim A “doesn’t exist”
and that he has not “had sex with a 17-year-old since I was 17.”125 The Committee found that to
be untrue and determined that there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz had sex with
Victim A in July 2017, when she was 17 years old, and he was 35. Representative Gaetz’s actions
were in violation of Florida’s statutory rape law.
Representative Gaetz has suggested that the allegations against him have been
manufactured and that Mr. Greenberg and Victim A are not credible. The Committee has
acknowledged that Mr. Greenberg’s credibility is in doubt. The Committee received additional
evidence from Mr. Greenberg that is not included in this Report, much of it salacious but
unverifiable, although consistent with the nature of the conduct that the Committee learned of from
other witnesses. The Committee found no reason to doubt the credibility of Victim A.
Representative Gaetz has suggested the fact that she has, through her attorneys, expressed an
intention to seek civil redress against him for raping her means that she has a financial motive that
undermines the veracity of her claims. The Committee reviewed a letter from counsel to Victim
A to counsel for Representative Gaetz, which stated she intended to “pursue claims against
123 Code of Ethics for Government Service, ¶ 2.
124 While the statute of limitations to bring state law charges against Representative Gaetz has long passed, that
limitations period is not applicable to the Committee’s findings. Pursuant to Committee Rule 18(d) and House Rule
XI, cl. 3(b)(3), the Committee’s investigative authority extends to any violations occurring since the third previous
Congress (in this matter, since January 2017).
125 Carlson Interview; April 6 Politico Article.32
[Representative Gaetz] including child sex trafficking and statutory rape.”126 Regardless of
whether Victim A had any pecuniary motive in sending such a communication, she cooperated
with DOJ’s investigation for years and was let down by the justice system when reports circulated
that DOJ would be unlikely to pursue charges against Representative Gaetz.127 Victim A is entitled
to all of the protections and remedies available to her under civil laws, and her intention to pursue
claims against Representative Gaetz and others does not negate her credibility. Moreover, as
discussed above, the Committee obtained testimony and documentary evidence from other
witnesses corroborating the allegations.
Representative Gaetz’s statutory rape of Victim A was a violation of Florida law, the Code
of Official Conduct, and the Code of Ethics for Government Service. The Committee received
evidence that Representative Gaetz did not learn that Victim A was 17 years old until more than a
month after their first sexual encounters. However, statutory rape is a strict liability crime. After
he learned that Victim A was a minor, he maintained contact and less than 6 months after she
turned 18, he met up with her again for commercial sex. When Mr. Greenberg was prosecuted for
sex trafficking the same individual, Representative Gaetz denied that she existed.128 His conduct
reflects discreditably upon the House.
B. The Committee Found Representative Gaetz Used Illegal Drugs
There is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz used cocaine, ecstasy, and
marijuana. At least two women saw Representative Gaetz using cocaine and ecstasy at different
events.129 Even more women understood him to regularly be using ecstasy. There is also ample
evidence that Representative Gaetz purchased and used marijuana; he appears to have set up a
pseudonymous e-mail account from his House office in the Capitol complex for the purpose of
purchasing marijuana. Representative Gaetz denied using illicit drugs in written correspondence
to the Committee.
126 Letter from counsel to Victim A to counsel to Representative Gaetz (Dec. 30, 2022). Representative Gaetz
provided this letter to the Committee but did not produce subsequent correspondence showing that his counsel
engaged in discussions regarding a potential pre-filing settlement. Over three months, Representative Gaetz’s
counsel delayed Victim A’s counsel from filing her lawsuit by engaging in what were ultimately unsuccessful
settlement discussions, in part due to “constrain[ts] by [Representative Gaetz’s] limited [financial] resources.”
127 See, e.g., Evan Perez and Hannah Rabinowitz, DOJ Prosecutors Recommend Against Charging Rep. Gaetz in
Sex-Trafficking Probe, CNN (Sept. 23, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/23/politics/matt-gaetz-justice-
department-probe/index.html. Victim A also noted in her response in the civil litigation that she would not be
precluded from filing counterclaims against Mr. Dorworth: “the Complaint improperly seeks to preempt any claims
[Victim A] may have against Mr. Dorworth for raping and trafficking her by making a threadbare request for
expansive declaratory judgment.” Mot. to Dismiss Complaint by Victim A, Christopher Dorworth v. Joel
Greenberg, et al., No. 6:23-cv-00871 (M.D. Fla.). Victim A settled with Mr. Dorworth in August 2024. On the
same date as the settlement, Representative Gaetz produced a publicly available Facebook post by Mr. Dorworth as
evidence that Victim A was “not credible.” Letter from Representative Matt Gaetz to Chairman Michael Guest and
Ranking Member Susan Wild, Committee on Ethics (Aug. 2, 2024). Shortly thereafter, Mr. Dorworth edited the
post to remove various assertions, including allegations that Victim A was a “prostitute.” Representative Gaetz
argued that the initial Facebook post was “dispositive” in showing Victim A’s “unreliability.”
128 Caroline Linton, Matt Gaetz denies relationship with a 17-year-old and says he’s a victim of attempted extortion,
CBS NEWS (Mar. 31, 2021), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/matt-gaetz-denies-inappropriate-sexual-relationship-
17-year-old-investigation/ (“The person doesn’t exist. I have not had a relationship with a 17-year-old.”).
129 Mr. Greenberg also stated he witnessed Representative Gaetz take ecstasy and cocaine.33
Members of Congress are not required to undergo the same background check process as
other government officials who obtain a security clearance. That process includes answering
questions about use of illegal drugs in the seven preceding years. Representative Gaetz used illegal
drugs on numerous occasions between 2017 and 2020, in violation of state laws. The Committee
also received evidence that Representative Gaetz and his associates provided drugs to women to
facilitate the sexual misconduct described above. Representative Gaetz’s conduct violated
paragraph 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service and clause 1 of the Code of Official
Conduct.
C. The Committee Found that Representative Gaetz Violated the House Gift Rule
There is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz received impermissible gifts in
connection with his travel to the Bahamas in September 2018. Specifically, Representative Gaetz
accepted travel via a private plane and other travel costs. Contrary to Representative Gaetz’s
claims that he provided “substantial” evidence to the Committee “demonstrating his innocence”
on this allegation, he provided no evidence showing how he paid for any travel costs other than
his flight to the Bahamas, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so.
As discussed above, Representative Gaetz’s associate provided the lodging and return
flight via private plane. Representative Gaetz accepted this gift without first seeking approval
from the Committee.130 The Gift Rule requires Members to apply to the Committee for a waiver
to accept gifts of personal friendship with a fair market value over a threshold amount.131 For
travel via private plane, the Committee has provided extensive guidance; less than a year after
Representative Gaetz’s flight from the Bahamas trip, the Committee circulated a reminder about
that guidance to the House community, noting that “[p]ractically any flight on a non-commercial
aircraft will exceed $250 in value and hence will require Committee approval.”132 The flight,
lodging, meal and “entertainment” expenses on the Bahamas trip that were incurred but not paid
by Representative Gaetz were well in excess of the personal friendship threshold.133 The
Committee also found evidence that Representative Gaetz impermissibly accepted private plane
travel on other occasions. Representative Gaetz failed to disclose the Bahamas travel gift, as well
as other private flights he has taken on his associates’ private planes, on his Financial Disclosure
forms.
Accordingly, the Committee found that Representative Gaetz violated House Rule XXV,
clause 5, by accepting impermissible gifts. Consistent with the Committee’s longstanding
130 The personal hospitality exception to the Gift Rule would not be applicable in this matter because Representative
Gaetz did not stay at a personal residence of the gift-giver.
131 See Young (finding that on at least three occasions, although Representative Young “may have been permitted to
accept the gift of travel under the personal friendship exception to the gift rule at the time,” because he did not seek
approval from the Committee, “the exception was inapplicable” and he was not permitted to accept the travel).
132 Comm. on Ethics, Non-Commercial Aircraft Travel (Apr. 10, 2019),
https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/Private%20Plane%20pinksheet%20FINAL.pdf.
133 Had Representative Gaetz applied for a waiver, the Committee would have considered multiple factors including
the nature of the friendship, which could have involved questions related to their joint interest in and past efforts
towards lobbying for medical marijuana.34
precedent, Representative Gaetz would be required to repay the value of the gifts and amend his
Financial Disclosure statements to disclose receipt of the gifts.134
D. The Committee Found Representative Gaetz Dispensed Special Privileges and Favors
to Individuals with Whom He Had a Personal Relationship
The Committee found substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz used the power of his
office to assist a woman with whom he was engaged in a sexual relationship in obtaining an
expedited passport. The woman was not his constituent, and the case was not handled in the same
manner as similar passport assistance cases. Accordingly, the Committee found Representative
Gaetz violated House regulations and laws requiring the use of official resources for
representational purposes, and paragraph 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service, which
prohibits the dispensing of special favors and privileges.
E. The Committee Found Representative Gaetz Sought to Obstruct Its Investigation of
His Conduct
The Committee found substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz engaged in
obstructive conduct with respect to the Committee’s investigation. Representative Gaetz pointed
to evidence that would “exonerate” him yet failed to produce any such materials.135 Representative
Gaetz continuously sought to deflect, deter, or mislead the Committee in order to prevent his
actions from being exposed. This was most notable with respect to the Committee’s specific
requests regarding the Bahamas trip; as discussed above, Representative Gaetz intentionally
withheld information relating to his return trip via private plane. Representative Gaetz clearly
understood that he had acted contrary to House Rules by accepting private plane travel but chose
to try to cover up his actions rather than comply with the Committee’s request.
Despite asserting he wanted an opportunity to address the allegations against him,
Representative Gaetz declined to provide testimony voluntarily and did not appear when
subpoenaed.136 Representative Gaetz was also provided ample time to review and produce
documents requested at various points in the Committee’s investigation, yet he produced only a
134 Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Madison Cawthorn, H. Rept. 117-591,
117th Cong., 2d Sess. (2022); Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Bobby L.
Rush, H. Rept. 115-618, 115th Cong., 2d Sess. (2018); Young.
135 Representative Gaetz pointed to news articles, the lack of a DOJ indictment, evidence that Mr. Greenberg is an
unreliable witness, and a letter from a jailhouse informant as exonerating. However, he did not produce any
contemporaneous documents that showed he did not engage in the conduct under investigation, such as his own text
messages, peer-to-peer payment platform records, calendar entries from relevant time frames, etc. In an X (formerly
Twitter) post, Representative Gaetz suggested, without actual knowledge, that the Committee’s “star witness” is Mr.
Greenberg. As noted at several points in this Report, the Committee agreed with Representative Gaetz that Mr.
Greenberg is not entirely credible and sought evidence from numerous other sources. Representative Gaetz also
produced a letter from a jailhouse informant and a subsequent interview conducted by “two former federal
investigators.” However, those investigators were not objective third-party interviewees; rather, they appear to have
been hired by Representative Gaetz’s counsel. @FmrRepMatt Gaetz September 26 X Post.
136 The Rules of the House do not apply any standard to service of process, unlike the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and other individuals, including Members of Congress, have been served subpoenas by e-mail in recent
Congresses. As noted, Representative Gaetz acknowledged that he received the subpoena from the Committee.35
handful of non-public documents to the Committee.137 These documents were largely irrelevant,
corresponding to time periods after most of the relevant conduct occurred. Likewise,
Representative Gaetz informed the Committee that he would “welcome” the opportunity to
respond to written questions, and the Committee then sent a list of 16 questions. After requesting
an extension to respond to written questions, which was granted, it appears that Representative
Gaetz used that time to craft a public letter mischaracterizing the Committee’s requests and
asserting he would “no longer” voluntarily cooperate, despite his uncooperative approach
throughout the review.138 His actions undermine not only his claims that he had exculpatory
information to provide, but also his claims that he intended to cooperate with the Committee in
good faith. It is apparent that Representative Gaetz’s assertions were nothing more than attempts
to delay the Committee’s investigation.
Representative Gaetz routinely ignored or significantly delayed producing relevant
information requested by the Committee. His failure to respond required the Committee to issue
subpoenas to financial institutions for Representative Gaetz’s financial records related to alleged
transactions. Those records show that Representative Gaetz bought and sold stocks and
cryptocurrencies from a trading account he opened in March 2021.139 Some of the trades were
below the $1,000 reporting threshold but others were not. Representative Gaetz not only failed to
file the required Periodic Transaction Reports, but he also failed to disclose the transactions in his
annual Financial Disclosure Statement. The Committee’s longstanding practice is not to take
enforcement action where a failure to file required disclosures is inadvertent, but because of his
lack of cooperation the Committee was unable to determine the reason the transactions were not
disclosed.
The Committee reminded Representative Gaetz of his duty of diligence and candor to the
Committee.140 Representative Gaetz’s response was to suggest that the Committee had a duty of
candor to him and must reveal the confidential sources supporting the allegations against him. The
Committee’s rules prevent such disclosures. Moreover, the Committee had serious concerns that
Representative Gaetz might retaliate against individuals who cooperated with the Committee. In
2020, the Committee admonished Representative Gaetz for his conduct towards a witness in a
congressional proceeding, finding that he acted in violation of the Code of Official Conduct for a
public statement that was perceived by some as a threat towards a witness.141 In that matter, the
Committee did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Representative Gaetz had the requisite
137 Representative Gaetz further asserted that he would need to ascertain whether “privilege or confidentiality”
applies to documents that he previously produced to DOJ. The Committee is not aware of any privileges that would
permit withholding documents that were previously produced to another governmental entity, and there is no basis
to withhold documents for “confidentiality.”
138 @FmrRepMattGaetz September 26 X Post.
139 Personal Checking Account #1 (showing over 50 purchases of stock or cryptocurrency on Coinbase and
Robinhood from March 2021 through June 2021 in amounts ranging from $100 to $3,105.62).
140 Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative George Santos, H. Rept. 118-274,
118th Cong., 1st Sess. 55 (2023); San Nicolas at 5; Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative David Schweikert, H. Rept. 116-465, 116th Cong. 2d Sess. 6 (2020); see also Richardson at 95
(explaining that the public’s trust in the integrity of the House is at risk when a respondent demonstrates “such little
respect for the internal discipline of the House that [the respondent] would evade its questioning, rather than
submitting to the fact gathering process in good faith.”).
141 Gaetz.36
criminal intent, and noted that he had expressed regret for his conduct. In contrast, in the current
matter, there is sufficient evidence of Representative Gaetz’s intent to derail the investigation.
The Committee determined that Representative Gaetz’s attempts to mislead and deter the
Committee from investigating him implicated federal criminal laws relating to false statements
and obstruction of Congress. Even if Representative Gaetz’s obstructive conduct in this
investigation did not rise to the level of a criminal violation, it was certainly inconsistent with the
requirement that Members act in a manner that reflects creditably upon the House, in violation of
House Rule XXIII, clause 1.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the above, the Committee determined there is substantial evidence that
Representative Gaetz violated House Rules and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution,
statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of
Congress.
VII. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c)
The Committee made no special oversight findings in this Report. No budget statement is
submitted. No funding is authorized by any measure in this Report.37
VIII. VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL GUEST ON BEHALF OF THE
DISSENTING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
I write on behalf of the members of the committee who do not support the release of the
report regarding former Representative Matt Gaetz. We believe and remain steadfast in the
position that the House Committee on Ethics lost jurisdiction to release to the public any
substantive work product regarding Mr. Gaetz after his resignation from the House on November
14, 2024.142
While we do not challenge the Committee’s findings, we take great exception that the
majority deviated from the Committee’s well-established standards and voted to release a report
on an individual no longer under the Committee’s jurisdiction, an action the Committee has not
taken since 2006.143
House Rules give the Committee jurisdiction over current Members, officers, and
employees of the House.144 Consistent with these rules, when a member who is under investigation
by the Committee leaves the House, the Committee’s standard practice is to close its investigation
and make no further statement on its findings. We do not believe the rules authorize the Committee
to continue or expand its jurisdiction as it sees fit. Any precedent to the contrary is extremely rare,
inconsistent with the rules, and outweighed by the vast majority of matters—too numerous to list—
in which the Committee took no material action after losing jurisdiction.
Representative Gaetz resigned from Congress, withdrew from consideration to serve in the
next administration, and declared that he would not seek to be seated in the 119 th Congress. The
decision to publish a report after his resignation breaks from the Committee’s long-standing
practice, opens the Committee to undue criticism, and will be viewed by some as an attempt to
weaponize the Committee’s process.
We believe that operating outside the jurisdictional bounds set forth by House Rules and
Committee standards, especially when making public disclosures, is a dangerous departure with
potentially catastrophic consequences.
Finally, we join the views of the Committee as expressed in its December 23, 2024, public
statement addressing the significant and unusual amount of public reporting on the Committee’s
review of this matter. As expressed by the Committee, “[t]o the extent that any of the public
reporting on this matter came from unauthorized disclosures of confidential Committee
information, we strongly condemn such unauthorized disclosures, which are damaging and
harmful to the Committee’s work.”145
142
170 Cong. Rec. H5985 (daily ed. Nov., 14, 2014).
143
Comm. On Ethics, Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct Involving Members and Current or
Former House Pages, H. Rept. 109-733, 109th Cong. 2d Sess. Unlike the matter of Representative Gaetz, this 2006
matter also involved the conduct of current members.
144 House Rule 11, Clause 3.
145 Statement of the Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative Matt Gaetz (Dec. 23, 2024), available at
https://ethics.house.gov/press-releases/statement-of-the-committee-on-ethics-regarding-representative-matt-gaetz-2