Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., may be done with Congress. But Congress is not done with him. And as President-elect Trump’s pick to serve as Attorney General, Gaetz is apparently not done with Congress, either.

Gaetz negotiated with Mr. Trump to become Attorney General on a flight to Florida – just hours after the incoming President spoke to House Republicans in Washington last week. Mr. Trump then made Gaetz his pick and the Florida Republican resigned.

What wasn’t known at the time was that the House Ethics Committee was on the precipice of releasing a report investigating allegations of “sexual misconduct” and “illicit drug use” by Gaetz. Gaetz stopped cooperating with the House investigation over the summer. The FBI probed Gaetz for years – but dropped its inquiry in February.

The Ethics Committee dashed a planned meeting where it likely would have published information about its inquest regarding Gaetz on Friday. But since Gaetz is no longer a Member of Congress, the committee supposedly is powerless to act.

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO POTENTIALLY RELEASING THE ETHICS COMMITTEE REPORT ON GAETZ

House Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., said the following on Wednesday when asked about the Gaetz probe – but before the Florida Republican resigned.

“Once the investigation is complete, then a report will be issued – assuming that at that time, that Mr. Gaetz is still a Member of Congress. If Mr. Gaetz were to resign because he is taking a position with the administration as the Attorney General then the Ethics Committee loses jurisdiction at that point. Once we lose jurisdiction, there would not be a report that would be issued. That’s not unique to this case,” said Guest.

Other Ethics Committee members tried to sidestep discussion of Gaetz.

“I’m not making any comments on that. I’m on the Ethics Committee so I’m staying clear of that,” said Rep. John Rutherford, R-Fla.

“Can you still release the report?” asked Rachel Scott of ABC.

“Nope. Sure can’t,” replied Rutherford, turning toward Scott.

A NARROW MARGIN: TRUMP TAPS HOUSE REPUBLICANS FOR HIS SECOND ADMINISTRATION

That is generally how the House Ethics Committee rolls when it comes to outstanding investigations involving former Members.

But it is not a hard and fast rule.

Fox has found that the Ethics Committee released the information on its probe into potential influence peddling by the late Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., after his death in 2010.

The House Ethics Committee has reportedly released its findings on former Reps. John Murtha, D-Penn., and Bill Boner, D-Tenn., after their departures from office. (Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images | CQ Roll Call via Getty Images)

The Ethics Committee also released a 699-page report on former Rep. Bill Boner, D-Tenn., after he left office in 1987. The committee found that Boner used campaign funds to travel to Hong Kong and may have used his office to influence a defense contractor.

The Ethics Committee investigated former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., after he was caught sending inappropriate messages to House pages in 2006. Foley abruptly resigned from the House. But the ethics panel hauled in a host of bipartisan Congressional leaders for closed door depositions to determine what they may have known about Foley’s activities.

That said, there is a way on the floor to dislodge an Ethics Committee report.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE GAETZ HOUSE ETHICS REPORT?

There is a mechanism called “question of privileges of the House.” A lawmaker could take the floor under this procedure, making the argument that keeping the Gaetz ethics report under wraps impugns the dignity and integrity of the House. The House would be required to vote on such a motion. If successful on the floor, the ethics panel could be compelled to release the report.

Yours truly asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., if Democrats might try to dislodge the Gaetz report from the Ethics Committee.

Pergram: “Could you envision a scenario where Democrats try to somehow dislodge this ethics report through a parliamentary maneuver?”

I asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., if his party planned on finding a way to dislodge the Gaetz report from the Ethics Committee. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Jeffries: “The Ethics Committee is an incredibly bipartisan committee. It’s the only committee in the Congress that is evenly divided. And it has a long history of having principled individuals on it. And I defer at this moment to whatever course they decide to take. And I hope they take a course that is bipartisan.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will study the credentials of Gaetz, run background checks and ultimately hold a confirmation hearing before voting the nomination to the floor for a vote. It could also block the nomination as well.

Senate Majority Whip and Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., formally asked the House Ethics Committee to send over the report as it reviews the fitness of Gaetz for the job.

MATT GAETZ’S NOMINATION ROCKS CAPITOL HILL

“The sequence and timing of Mr. Gaetz’s resignation from the House raises serious questions about the contents of the House Ethics Committee report,” said Durbin. “This information could be relevant to the question of Mr. Gaetz’s confirmation as the next Attorney General of the United States and our Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent.”

Democrats weren’t the only ones trying to pry loose the report.

“I think there should not be any limitation on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation, including, whatever the House Ethics Committee generated,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, seems keen to unearth the Gaetz report’s findings, saying there should “not be any limitation” on what the Senate Judiciary Committee can investigate. (Reuters)

Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., serves on the Ethics Committee. He hinted that the panel should consider dispatching the report to the Senate.

“I think the Senate certainly had a right to request it. I can’t talk about our internal deliberations. But the information that they’ve requested, I think it’s totally reasonable,” said Ivey. “In fact, I think it’s essential for them to get that kind of information before they make a decision.”

On Friday, Johnson noted that he “doesn’t control the Ethics Committee.”

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE MEANING OF A REPUBLICAN SENATE – AND WHAT’S AHEAD FOR THE HOUSE

But Johnson went further than he had before about his views on releasing the report.

“We should stick to the tradition of not releasing a report on a former Member of the House because it would open a dangerous Pandora’s box,” said Johnson.

Johnson reaffirmed that during an appearance on Fox News Sunday when asked about releasing the report.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., cautioned against releasing the Ethics Committee’s findings, citing precedent and the potential opening of a “dangerous Pandora’s Box.” (Getty Images)

“I think this would be a breach of protocol that could be dangerous for us going forward in the future,” said the Speaker.

It’s possible the Senate Judiciary Committee could subpoena the report from the Ethics Committee. And as suggested earlier, there is a way to dislodge the report from the panel via a vote on the House floor. Such a scenario would put a lot of Republicans in a tough spot. They may fear that voting to release the report could put them on the wrong side of incoming President Trump. That’s to say nothing of the prospective Attorney General.

But Gaetz isn’t liked by his former House colleagues. In fact, some Republicans may have more disdain for the former Florida Congressman than Democrats. That’s partly because it was Gaetz who single-handedly triggered a vote last year to remove former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. That maneuver pitched the House into three weeks of chaos.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Gaetz is no longer a Member of the House. But that doesn’t matter. The fight over the ethics report is just getting started. And that’s spurring just as much pandemonium as if Gaetz were still a Member.

US President Joe Biden has authorised Ukraine to launch limited strikes into Russia using US-made long-range missiles, in a big policy shift before the end of his White House term in January, two people familiar with the decision said.

The move by Biden comes in response to the deployment of thousands of North Korean troops to support Russia in its war against Ukraine, and after a barrage of new strikes by Moscow on Ukrainian cities at the weekend.

Tuesday will mark the 1,000th day of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Biden has allowed Ukraine to use HIMARS — the American High Mobility Artillery Rocket System — to strike targets inside Russia.

But he has long resisted allowing Kyiv to launch strikes within Russia using US-made long-range missiles known as the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, on the grounds that it could escalate tensions with Moscow. ATACMS missiles have a range of up to 300 kilometres, or 190 miles.

He is now dropping those objections more than two months before he leaves office to make way for Donald Trump. The Republican is sceptical of additional military aid to Ukraine and has vowed to bring a swift end to the war — without saying how exactly he would do it.

The White House declined to comment. The Pentagon declined to respond to a request for comment.

In a late-night address in Kyiv on Sunday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy noted media reports “talking about the fact that we have received permission” to use the ATACMS inside Russia, though he did not confirm Biden’s decision.

Zelenskyy has pleaded for months for the US and other western partners to lift restrictions placed on long-range weapons provided by them for use inside Russia.

He has argued that cross-border strikes with the American ATACMS, British Storm Shadow and French Scalp missiles were necessary to hit Moscow’s forces before they could launch new attacks on Ukrainian targets, including critical infrastructure.

“Two countries are against us, against Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said on Friday, referring to Russia and North Korea. “We would very much like to be granted the ability to use long-range weapons against military targets on Russia’s territory.”

Andriy Zagorodnyuk, a former Ukrainian defence minister, said the use of ATACMS missiles would allow Kyiv to set its sights on “high value targets” and “potentially disrupt Russian operations”.

“There are targets which can only be addressed by high payload missiles such as ATACMS or equivalent aerial missiles. This is, of course, a decision giving Ukraine troops a chance, though as with many previous decisions coming after a significant and extremely painful delay.”

Biden’s decision to allow the Ukrainians to use ATACMS missiles followed the deployment early last month of some 12,000 North Korean troops to Russia.

This was the first foray into the war by a foreign military and a major expansion of North Korea’s support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Pyongyang had previously provided Moscow with hundreds of ballistic missiles and millions of artillery shells. In exchange, Moscow has provided Pyongyang with military technologies to help with its missile programmes and money, a senior Ukrainian official said.

In recent weeks, Moscow has massed some 50,000 troops, including 10,000 North Korean soldiers, ahead of an anticipated offensive in Russia’s Kursk region to retake about 600 sq km of territory held by Ukrainian forces since their incursion in August.

The American ATACMS missiles are likely to be first used by Ukraine to target those Russian and North Korean forces in the Kursk region. 

A Ukrainian intelligence assessment shared with the Financial Times revealed that North Korea has supplied Russia with long-range rocket and artillery weapons, including 50 domestically made 170mm M1989 self-propelled howitzers and 20 updated 240mm multiple launch rocket systems.

Some of these weapons have been moved to the Kursk region for the planned assault involving North Korean troops.

“Even if limited to the Kursk region, ATACMS missiles put at risk high value Russian systems, assembly areas, logistics, command and control,” said Michael Kofman, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“They may enable Ukraine to hold on to Kursk for longer and raise the costs to North Korea for its involvement in the war.”

Bill Taylor, former US ambassador to Ukraine, said Biden’s decision makes “Ukraine stronger and increases the odds of a just end to the war”.

“The decision may also unlock British and French missiles. Possibly even German,” he added.

When asked about the escalatory risk from the US shift in policy, António Guterres, UN secretary-general, told reporters at the G20 in Rio de Janeiro: “We have a very consistent position regarding escalation in the Ukrainian war. We want peace . . . in line with the UN charter and international law.”

Russia has not yet responded to the move. In September, Vladimir Putin said any such US authorisation would mean “the direct involvement of Nato countries, the US, and the EU . . . It would mean they are at war with Russia — and if that’s the case, we will make the corresponding decisions.”

Russian military bloggers close to the Kremlin responded on Telegram with fury and frustration to the news.

Rybar, a channel with more than 1.3mn subscribers, said the threat of ATACMS missiles would force Russian command and control centres, air defences and airfields further from the front lines. 

Additional reporting by Henry Foy and Anastasia Stognei

For the first time, President Biden has given Ukraine the green light to use powerful American long-range weapons for strikes inside Russia, a U.S. official told NPR on Sunday.

The missiles, known as Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, can travel about 190 miles. Their use would enable Ukrainian troops to strike Russia’s weapon stockpiles, logistical centers and airfields — which could help stop Russian forces from advancing on the battlefield and attacking Ukrainian cities.

The U.S. official, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about the decision, said the U.S. is allowing Ukraine to use the weapons to target in and around Kursk — the same region where some 10,000 North Korean troops were recently deployed, according to the U.S. and its allies.

The authorization marks a significant reversal in U.S. policy. Until recently, the Biden administration resisted allowing Ukraine to fire American long-range missiles into Russian territory for fear that it would only escalate the war.

The U.S. confirmed in the spring that it had sent ATACMS to Ukraine, with the caveat that the weapons would only be used inside Ukrainian territory.

British officials will likely follow suit in allowing Ukraine to use their Storm Shadow long-range missiles in Russia, the U.S. official said. These missiles can travel about 155 miles. The British needed U.S. approval because these missiles contain U.S. components.

It’s unclear how many long-range ATACMS Ukraine has but the numbers are limited since Ukraine already used some of the weapons on targets inside its territory.

A separate source on Capitol Hill, who also wasn’t authorized to speak publicly, said the decision is unlikely to be a game-changer in the war because of the limited number of such missiles and because Ukraine is already using drones to hit Russian targets.

The war has escalated since Ukrainian forces carried out a surprise incursion into Russia’s Kursk region in August. The attack was viewed as a breakthrough for Ukraine and a setback for Russia. Then, in October, North Korea sent thousands of its troops to Kursk to help Russia fight off the Ukrainian incursion.

The policy shift comes just over two months before President-elect Donald Trump will return to the White House. Trump has criticized the amount of aid given to Ukraine in its fight against Russia and claimed he could end the war in 24 hours, though he has not explained how.

NPR’s Tom Bowman contributed reporting.