In October of 2025, formerly sealed documents were released, revealing that the 17-year-old girl former congressman Matt Gatez reportedly bought sex from was homeless and trying to save money for braces.
As we previously reported, on December 23, 2024, the U.S. House Committee on Ethics released a 37-page report detailing its investigation into the allegations against Gaetz. Despite finding there to be substantial evidence that Gaetz had sexual relations with the victim, the Ethics Committee concerningly did not find that he engaged in sex trafficking. Moreover, this report followed a federal investigation into the allegations, at the end of which the U.S. Department of Justice declined to bring sex-trafficking charges against Gaetz.
Relying on their determination that Gaetz did not use force, fraud, or coercion to purchase sex from the victim, the Ethics Committee incorrectly applied federal trafficking law. Because children cannot consent to be bought or sold for sex, the elements of force, fraud, or coercion are not required where the trafficking victim is a minor. It need only be proven that an individual solicited, patronized, or obtained a minor for the purpose of a commercial sex act in order to prove that individual engaged in sex trafficking.
By legal definition, Gaetz patronized the victim for a commercial sex act when, on July 15, 2017, he allegedly paid her $400 at a house party where he had sex with her twice, once in front of other partygoers. The victim “understood [the money] to be payment for sex.” A commercial sex act is defined as “any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.” Gaetz’s reported actions meet these elements plainly and simply.
The troubling decision not to pursue sex-trafficking charges against Gaetz is only made worse by the fact that the victim was particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Living in a homeless shelter with her siblings, the high school junior was saving up to get braces to fix her teeth. She falsely advertised herself as 18 years old on a “sugar dating” website designed to connect older men with younger women because she was unable to make enough working at McDonald’s. It was through this website that she met Joel Greenberg in April 2017. Greenberg ultimately pleaded guilty to sex trafficking the victim, after the government’s evidence revealed at least seven sex-for-money encounters between them before she turned 18. The victim was allegedly introduced to Gaetz, a friend of Greenberg’s, when Greenberg brought her to the house party in July.
In human trafficking, imbalances of power are fundamental for exploitation to flourish. The Palermo Protocol, which provides the international definition of trafficking, specifically includes “the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability” as an element. In the allegations against Gaetz, we see three distinct imbalances of power: gender, age, and class.
It is no surprise that the sex trade presents an overwhelming gender disparity: 78% of sex trafficking victims worldwide and 94% of victims in the United States are women and girls. Although the victim’s race has not been publicly disclosed, women and girls of color are even more vulnerable. Nationally, 40% of female victims are black and 24% are Latinx. By contrast, 99% of sex buyers globally are men. These disparities highlight that sex trafficking is unequivocally a form of gender-based violence, and that the power imbalance between men and women is almost always at play – notwithstanding the likely intersectionality of other risk factors.
The victim’s age further magnifies the power imbalance between her and Gaetz, particularly in the digital age where “sugaring” websites make younger women uniquely accessible to traffickers. Sugar dating is an inherently exploitative dynamic, most commonly involving wealthy, older men who provide money and/or gifts to economically vulnerable young women in exchange for “companionship.” Though sex may not be part of the initial arrangement, it is typically only a matter of time before “sugar daddies” become coercive and the relationship shifts into one of obligation. The ease with which underage girls can create profiles and instantly connect with traffickers and sex buyers on these platforms is alarming. Any age restrictions these forums have offer little protection – as the victim in this case did, minors may easily falsify their age when creating an account. Young people often lack a full understanding of the nature of sugaring relationships and may experience a false sense of agency or equality with their “sugar daddy.” This only enhances sex-buyers’ ability to manipulate minors by gaining their trust and exploiting their vulnerability.
Homeless youth further face a disproportionately high risk of trafficking, even as compared to other vulnerable populations, due to the intersectionality of other general risk factors such as poverty, unemployment, addiction, family instability, and history of sexual abuse. Young people are also particularly vulnerable to social stressors, such as gender and sexual identity, that affect their self-esteem and can contribute to unstable familial relationships. This leads to a startling reality: one in five homeless youth are victims of human trafficking, and 68% of minor victims were trafficked while homeless. Experiencing a lack of stability and basic needs at such a young age creates desperation that sex-buyers hold themselves out to cure. As one survivor put it, “I needed housing and help because I had no place to stay… I tried to get in a youth program, but there was no space for me. They took my name and said they would call me when housing became available. That is when I met X. He didn’t have a waitlist.” Traffickers exploit this myriad of risk factors from multiple angles – recognizing that traumatized children with neither a place to live nor any money, who likely have no one looking out for them, are easier to control.
The class disparity between a homeless teenager and a wealthy politician may seem particularly stark, but this imbalance perfectly exemplifies the class power dynamics that fuel the sex trade nationwide; indeed,“high frequency buyers in the United States earn a salary of $100k+ annually.” Gaetz’s financial ability to exploit these unique vulnerabilities, as well as his potential to feel shielded from accountability due to the disproportionate power dynamic, reflect an exemplary case as to how human trafficking operates nationwide every day.
The allegations against Gaetz provide a case study on how trafficking operates in the United States as well as the broad impunity afforded to those who facilitate exploitation. This case exposes not a gap in the law, but rather a failure to understand it and to enforce it. Federal trafficking law exists to protect those who are exploited through the profound power imbalances of gender, age, and class, and the evidentiary bar is explicitly lower when a minor is involved. Until these laws are enforced as written, accountability will remain selective and these power imbalances will continue to thrive. Neither Gaetz’s political power nor the Committee’s determination that he did not employ force, fraud, or coercion when engaging in a commercial sex transaction with the victim should have had any bearing on the decision to bring charges against him. The CSE Institute urges lawmakers to correctly apply and steadfastly enforce their own law to protect child victims and hold all offenders accountable.
All views expressed herein are personal to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law or of Villanova University.