A statement from the committee accompanying the report said the panel unanimously voted to adopt the report. The committee said it uncovered additional “uncharged and unlawful conduct” by Santos that go beyond the criminal allegations already pending against him, and would immediately refer these allegations to the Justice Department for further investigation.

Santos announced in a statement that he will not seek reelection following the release of the ethics report, though he remained defiant in the face of the allegations against him and denounced the investigation, calling it a “biased report.”

“It is a disgusting politicized smear that shows the depths of how low our federal government has sunk. Everyone who participated in this grave miscarriage of Justice should all be ashamed of themselves,” Santos wrote of the report in a post on X.

How broad is the Republican representation in that committee/panel (that Santos is lambasting in toto)? Are there mostly "RINOs" in it? Are there some members of the Freedom Caucus too?

The NYT wrote in January that Santos has been trying align himself (and so court the favors of) the Freedom Caucus. While I'm not sure they formally accepted him, that's why I'm asking, basically.


1 Answer 1


The vote for the Santos Report was unanimous, so all Republicans on the committee voted for it. The Republicans on the committee are:

  • Michael Guest, Mississippi, Chair
  • David Joyce, Ohio
  • John Rutherford, Florida
  • Andrew Garbarino, New York
  • Michelle Fischbach, Minnesota

The Freedom Caucus is not fully public in regards to its membership, but none of in the Ethics committee are public members, and neither is Santos. As to whether they are "RINO"s, that depends on one's definition of a RINO, something I won't go into here, as it appears to opinion based.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .