"My understanding is, the Dekker research results didn't make it into the original published Dutch AMS report, because it was considered to be too controversial towards Boeing. Please check"
The Dutch authority published their reaction to media reports on the investigation of flight TK1951 in Jan 2020, explaining the 'belated' publication of the Dekker report.
Their comments concluded; -
"The key-question whether lessons of the TK1951-crash were sufficiently learned by Boeing and the American authorities, should be part of the ongoing international investigation in the recent crashes of Boeing 737 Max."
https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/pag...tigation-crash
The Dutch quote appears to be a 'safety-political' comment re continuing 737 Max issues - a reaction to the flawed certification (FAA - Boeing) and ineffective safety process (Congress - FAA).
In part this is similar to some aspects of the NTSB's publication ('a shot across the bows' #870) which may have more to do with politics than technical fact. I suspect that the NTSB would privately agree with the Dutch comment. Thus by publishing the Ethiopian report the NTSB re-emphasises that they are still an independent investigator.
Q? Does the FAA have any rights enabling them to defy the Congressional ruling, e.g. a new or refreshed safety ruling for 737 Max .
Without FAA re-intervention to uphold the previous 737 Max 7/10 position, then their world-standing is further degraded, a puppet of political (manufacturing) will. Congress gives the FAA a mandate to administrate safety them constrains them.
EU - EASA beware
.