Last updated 4 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The Hatch Act of 1939, formally known as “An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities,” is a federal statute that create a wall between politics and public service. It prohibits millions of government employees from engaging in partisan political activities while on the job.
The law applies to the majority of federal employees in the executive branch, from park rangers to FBI agents to White House staff. Its enforcement at the highest levels of government has been a recurring source of national debate and controversy, particularly when senior officials openly defy its restrictions.
At its core, the Act embodies a fundamental trade-off within American democracy: limiting certain political expression rights for government employees in exchange for a stable, impartial, and effective government workforce that serves the public interest rather than a specific political party’s agenda.
The Crisis That Created the Law
Depression-Era Corruption Fears
The Hatch Act was not created in a vacuum but was a direct response to a crisis of public trust during the Great Depression. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal created massive federal programs to provide relief and employment, most notably the Works Progress Administration (WPA). While these programs provided a critical lifeline to millions of Americans, they also created a vast new workforce of federal employees.
This rapid expansion of the federal government sparked widespread fears that the party in power could use these public jobs and funds as a political machine to entrench its own authority. These fears were not theoretical.
Widespread allegations emerged, particularly following the 1938 congressional elections, that local Democratic Party officials were systematically using the WPA for partisan gain. In swing states like Kentucky, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania, accusations flew that WPA jobs were being traded for political support, votes, and campaign contributions.
A series of newspaper articles exposed evidence of WPA patronage, prompting a Senate investigation into the matter.
The Bipartisan Solution
It was this environment of perceived corruption—the use of taxpayer-funded relief programs to coerce political activity and influence elections—that provided the immediate impetus for the law.
Sponsored by Senator Carl Hatch, a Democrat from New Mexico, the Act was designed to build a wall between the administrative functions of government and the political operations of the ruling party.
The solution was to severely restrict the partisan political activities of the people who constitute the government: its employees. This established an inherent tension with the First Amendment rights of those employees, a tension that continues to define the law today.
The Three Core Principles
Through its various amendments and evolutions, the Hatch Act has consistently rested on three core principles that articulate the fundamental purpose of maintaining a politically neutral civil service.
Nonpartisan Program Administration
The primary goal of the Act is to guarantee that government programs and services are delivered fairly and impartially, without regard to the political affiliation of the citizens they are meant to serve.
Whether distributing disaster relief funds, processing Social Security benefits, or enforcing environmental regulations, the public must have confidence that these actions are based on law and need, not political favoritism.
The rationale is that the inherent coercive power of the executive branch should never be weaponized to influence the outcome of a democratic election.
Protection from Political Coercion
The Act functions as a critical shield for government workers. It protects them from being pressured by their superiors to donate to a political campaign, volunteer for a candidate, attend a political rally, or place a partisan sign in their yard.
Before the Act, such coercion was a common feature of the political “spoils system,” where a government job was often contingent on political loyalty and activity. By prohibiting such pressure, the Act ensures that federal employees can perform their duties based on professional judgment and without fear of political reprisal.
Merit-Based Employment
The Hatch Act is a bulwark of the modern merit-based civil service system. It reinforces the principle that federal employees should be hired, promoted, and retained based on their skills, qualifications, and performance, not on their political connections or party affiliation.
This helps to professionalize the government workforce, ensuring that the public is served by competent and experienced individuals rather than by those whose primary qualification is their political allegiance.
Who Must Follow the Rules
The Hatch Act’s restrictions apply to a broad swath of the government workforce, but its rules are not one-size-fits-all. The law makes careful distinctions based on an employee’s role and the sensitivity of their position.
The Covered Workforce
The Act covers nearly all civilian employees in the executive branch of the federal government. This includes employees in cabinet-level departments like State and Defense, independent agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, and even the U.S. Postal Service.
The rules apply to full-time and part-time employees alike. An employee remains covered by the Act even when they are on annual leave, sick leave, or furlough.
Key Exemptions
The most significant exemptions from the Hatch Act are the President and the Vice President of the United States. This exemption is critical to understanding the dynamics of enforcement within the White House.
While the President, as the head of the executive branch and an inherently political figure, cannot violate the Act, their staff and appointees can. This distinction creates a unique situation where the actions of top aides may be legally scrutinized even as the actions of their principal are not.
Two Tiers of Restrictions
The Hatch Act applies different sets of rules to different employees. This tiered system reveals a core logic: the closer an employee’s job is to the exercise of coercive state power, national security, or impartial policy implementation, the more stringent the prohibitions on their partisan activity must be.
“Less Restricted” Employees: Most federal employees fall into this category. Thanks to the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993, these individuals are permitted to actively participate in partisan political activities during their off-duty hours and away from the federal workplace.
This landmark reform recognized that the original Act’s near-total ban on political activity was overly broad for employees in non-sensitive roles and unduly infringed on their rights as private citizens.
“Further Restricted” Employees: A smaller but significant group falls into this category. These individuals are prohibited from taking an active part in partisan political management or campaigns, even on their own time.
This group includes employees of intelligence and law enforcement agencies such as the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Secret Service. It also includes career members of the Senior Executive Service, who are high-level managers responsible for implementing policy, and Administrative Law Judges, who must remain impartial adjudicators.
The rationale for these stricter limitations is that the duties of these employees are so sensitive that even the appearance of partisanship could severely damage the credibility and effectiveness of their agencies.
State and Local Reach
The reach of the Hatch Act extends beyond the federal government. It also applies to many state, county, and municipal employees whose “principal employment is in connection with an activity which is funded in whole or in part” by federal loans or grants.
This provision demonstrates the power of the federal government to attach conditions to the funds it provides to states and localities. However, the restrictions on these employees are narrower than those on their federal counterparts.
The Rules: What’s Allowed and What’s Not
For federal employees, navigating the Hatch Act pivots on a few key principles: the distinction between on-duty and off-duty conduct, the use of government resources, the nature of the employee’s position, and a near-absolute ban on fundraising.
The evolution of the workplace, particularly with the rise of telework and social media, has introduced new complexities, requiring employees to be more vigilant than ever.
Permitted vs. Prohibited Activities
The following table provides a comparative overview of common political activities and how the rules apply to the two main categories of federal employees:
| Activity | “Less Restricted” Employees | “Further Restricted” Employees |
|---|---|---|
| Register and Vote | Permitted | Permitted |
| Express Opinions on Candidates/Issues | Permitted, but not while on duty, in the workplace, or using official authority | Permitted, but not in a way that constitutes taking an active part in a partisan campaign |
| Contribute Money to a Campaign/Party | Permitted | Permitted |
| Attend a Political Fundraiser | Permitted | Permitted |
| Display a Campaign Bumper Sticker/Yard Sign | Permitted (on personal property) | Permitted (on personal property) |
| Volunteer for a Partisan Campaign | Permitted while off duty and away from the workplace | Prohibited |
| Make Campaign Speeches | Permitted while off duty and away from the workplace | Prohibited |
| Hold Office in a Political Party or Club | Permitted | Prohibited |
| Run for Office in a Partisan Election | Prohibited | Prohibited |
| Run for Office in a Nonpartisan Election | Permitted (as long as the election remains nonpartisan) | Permitted (as long as the election remains nonpartisan) |
| Solicit, Accept, or Receive Political Contributions | Prohibited at all times | Prohibited at all times |
| Use Official Authority/Title to Influence an Election | Prohibited at all times | Prohibited at all times |
| Engage in Political Activity While On Duty | Prohibited | Prohibited |
| Use Social Media to Advocate for a Partisan Candidate | Permitted while off duty. Prohibited while on duty | Prohibited at all times |
The Four Core Prohibitions
Four prohibitions serve as bright-line rules that apply to nearly all covered federal employees:
Using Official Authority to Influence an Election: This is the cardinal sin under the Hatch Act. An employee cannot use their government position, title, or any influence derived from their job to interfere with or affect the result of an election. This includes everything from endorsing a candidate while speaking in an official capacity to suggesting that subordinates attend a political event.
Soliciting Political Contributions: This is a nearly absolute, 24/7 prohibition. Federal employees cannot, at any time, ask for or accept money or anything of value for a partisan political party, candidate, or group. This means they are forbidden from hosting a fundraiser, selling tickets to a political dinner, or even forwarding a fundraising email from a candidate to their friends.
Running for Partisan Political Office: Federal employees are barred from being candidates in partisan elections. They are generally permitted to run for office in nonpartisan elections, such as for a local school board, but they must be careful. If a nonpartisan race becomes partisan, the employee may be forced to withdraw or resign from their federal job.
Political Activity On-Duty or in the Federal Workplace: While on the clock or on federal property, employees must be politically neutral. This prohibits any activity directed at the success or failure of a political party or candidate. Common examples include wearing a partisan political button, displaying a campaign poster in a cubicle, using a government computer to send political emails, or making a political contribution online while at one’s desk.
The Digital Gray Areas
The 1993 reforms were built on a clear physical and temporal distinction between an employee’s professional and private life. Technology has since blurred those lines, creating new compliance challenges that the law’s text did not anticipate.
Telework Challenges: When an employee is teleworking, their home or alternate worksite is considered their federal workplace for the duration of their work hours. This means all on-duty restrictions apply.
An employee cannot wear a campaign t-shirt during a work-related video call or have partisan signs or pictures visible in their background. This creates a critical distinction: a campaign sign in the front yard is permissible personal expression, but that same sign on the wall behind the employee’s desk during a work call is a Hatch Act violation.
Social Media Traps: Social media collapses the temporal separation between on-duty and off-duty. An employee taking a five-minute break at their desk is still considered “on duty” and “in the workplace.”
Therefore, using that time to “like,” “share,” or “retweet” a post from a political candidate on a personal phone could be a violation. Similarly, employees are forbidden from using a government email account for any political purpose and cannot send or forward partisan emails from a personal account while on duty.
This creates a high risk of inadvertent violations, as a simple click can cross a legal line. For “Further Restricted” employees, the rules are even stricter, often prohibiting them from ever linking to or sharing partisan material, even while off duty.
How the Law Is Enforced
The enforcement of the Hatch Act is not left to individual agencies or political whims. Instead, it is handled through a structured, two-part system designed to ensure due process and prevent the enforcement process itself from becoming politicized.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is an independent federal agency tasked with investigating and prosecuting violations of the Hatch Act. Its role is twofold:
Proactive Guidance: A significant part of the OSC’s mission is preventative. The agency’s Hatch Act Unit issues thousands of advisory opinions each year to federal employees and agencies. Any employee who is unsure whether a planned activity is permissible can request a formal opinion from the OSC.
Reactive Enforcement: The OSC is also the primary body for receiving and investigating complaints of alleged Hatch Act violations. Any member of the public or any federal employee can file a complaint.
The OSC then conducts an investigation, which can involve interviewing witnesses, collecting documents, and requiring testimony under oath. Federal employees and their agencies are required by law to cooperate with OSC investigations.
The Merit Systems Protection Board
The OSC does not have the authority to impose discipline itself. Instead, it must prove its case before the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB is an independent, bipartisan, quasi-judicial agency within the executive branch that serves as the guardian of the federal merit systems.
When the OSC files a complaint, the case is heard by an MSPB administrative judge. The accused employee has the right to a hearing and to be represented by counsel. The MSPB judge reviews the evidence and arguments from both the OSC and the employee and issues a decision on whether a violation occurred.
This bifurcated structure, separating the prosecutor (OSC) from the judge (MSPB), is a deliberate check and balance. It mirrors the broader American legal system and is essential for ensuring that an employee accused of improper political activity is afforded due process.
The Consequences
The penalties for violating the Hatch Act are significant and vary depending on the severity of the offense and the employee’s record. The MSPB has a range of disciplinary actions it can impose on federal employees.
For Federal Employees: Penalties can range from a letter of reprimand for a minor, inadvertent violation to more severe consequences, including suspension without pay, a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000, a reduction in grade (demotion), debarment from federal employment for a period of up to five years, or, in the most serious cases, removal from federal service (firing).
For State and Local Employees: If the MSPB finds that a violation by a covered state or local employee warrants removal, the employing agency is required to fire the employee. If the agency fails to do so within 30 days, it risks having federal grant or loan funds withheld—an amount equal to two years of the employee’s salary.
Notable Violations Across Administrations
While the Hatch Act applies to millions of rank-and-file federal workers, its enforcement has always been most visible and most contentious when it involves senior officials at the heart of political power. A review of alleged and confirmed violations across different presidential administrations reveals that the issue is bipartisan.
The Bush Administration (2001-2009)
During the administration of President George W. Bush, the White House Office of Political Affairs came under intense scrutiny. A comprehensive investigation by the Office of Special Counsel concluded that the OPA had systematically violated the Hatch Act in the lead-up to the 2006 midterm elections.
The OSC report found that the OPA had used government resources and official, on-duty time to conduct political briefings for political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These briefings, often accompanied by PowerPoint presentations, focused on strategies for helping Republican candidates win elections.
Furthermore, the OSC found that the OPA coordinated official travel for Cabinet secretaries and other agency heads to appear at events with embattled Republican candidates. These trips were often classified as “official business” and paid for with taxpayer funds, but the OSC concluded their primary purpose was political.
The investigation also found that Lurita Doan, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, had violated the Act by participating in a briefing where she asked how she could use her agency’s resources to help “our candidates” get elected.
The Obama Administration (2009-2017)
The challenge of keeping official duties separate from political advocacy continued during the Obama administration, demonstrating the bipartisan nature of Hatch Act compliance issues.
The most high-profile case involved Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In 2012, while speaking in her official capacity at a gala, Secretary Sebelius made off-the-cuff remarks endorsing a candidate for governor in North Carolina.
The OSC investigated and found that she had violated the Hatch Act by making a political speech at an official event. Secretary Sebelius acknowledged her error, and the government was reimbursed for the costs of her travel.
Other cases during this period showed that the law was also enforced against lower-level employees. An Internal Revenue Service agent faced a 120-day suspension for forwarding a single fundraising email from then-candidate Barack Obama while on duty.
In another case, an attorney at the Federal Election Commission resigned and was barred from federal employment for two years after admitting to posting dozens of partisan tweets and soliciting campaign contributions for President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.
The Trump Administration (2017-2021)
The Trump administration brought the Hatch Act into the national spotlight in an unprecedented way. A 2021 OSC report found that at least 13 senior Trump administration officials had violated the law in the lead-up to the 2020 election.
The report described a “willful disregard for the Hatch Act” and concluded that the cumulative effect of these violations was to “undermine public confidence in the nonpartisan operation of government.”
The most prominent case involved Kellyanne Conway, Counselor to the President. The OSC sent multiple reports to the President finding that Ms. Conway had engaged in “persistent, notorious, and deliberate Hatch Act violations” by repeatedly using her official position in television interviews and on social media to attack Democratic presidential candidates.
Her actions were so frequent and flagrant that the OSC took the extraordinary step of recommending her removal from federal service.
A Breakdown in Enforcement
The administration’s response marked a significant break from past norms. President Trump refused to take any disciplinary action against Ms. Conway or other officials cited by the OSC.
Ms. Conway herself publicly mocked the law, telling a reporter who asked about her violations, “Blah, blah, blah.”
This public defiance, coupled with the administration’s use of the White House grounds for the 2020 Republican National Convention and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s decision to change State Department policy to allow him to deliver a partisan speech at the convention, created an institutional crisis for the OSC.
The primary enforcement tool for holding White House staff accountable—a report to the President—was rendered powerless when the President chose to ignore it.
Closing the Loophole
The “unprecedented defiance” of the Hatch Act during the Trump administration revealed a critical flaw in its enforcement structure. For decades, the OSC had operated under the interpretation that for senior White House staff who are not confirmed by the Senate, it could only investigate and report violations to the President, who then had sole discretion over whether to impose discipline.
In a direct response to this crisis, the OSC announced a landmark policy shift in May 2024. In a new advisory opinion, the OSC stated that it would no longer defer to the President for discipline in these cases.
Instead, it will now pursue disciplinary action against White House officials for Hatch Act violations directly before the Merit Systems Protection Board, just as it does for other federal employees.
This institutional adaptation was a direct result of the events of the previous administration. It is an attempt to restore the law’s integrity by bypassing the presidential “firewall” and transforming the enforcement dynamic from one reliant on political will to one based on an independent, quasi-judicial process.
This change represents one of the most significant developments in the enforcement of the Hatch Act in decades and is poised to reshape how future administrations approach the law.
The Constitutional Debate: Free Speech vs. Good Government
For over 80 years, the Hatch Act has been at the center of a fundamental debate that pits two core American values against each other: the right of individual citizens to participate in the political process and the need for an effective, impartial government.
This debate is a microcosm of the larger, enduring tension in constitutional law between individual liberties and the state’s interest in its own preservation and proper functioning.
The First Amendment Challenge
The primary constitutional criticism of the Hatch Act is that it infringes upon the First Amendment rights of millions of American citizens. Critics, including organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that the law’s restrictions on political activity create a “chilling effect,” causing government employees to self-censor and refrain from political speech for fear of inadvertently breaking the complex rules.
The core of this argument is that federal employees should not be forced to surrender their fundamental rights of political expression and association as a condition of public service. As Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent in a key Hatch Act case, the law deprives a large group of citizens of their right to fully participate in elections, and a healthy democracy should encourage, not muzzle, political activity.
The Supreme Court’s Balancing Act
The Supreme Court has considered First Amendment challenges to the Hatch Act on multiple occasions and has consistently upheld its constitutionality. In landmark cases such as United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) and U.S. Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973), the Court established a legal framework known as a “balancing test” to evaluate the law.
This test acknowledges the validity of both competing interests. On one side of the scale is the individual employee’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and association. On the other side is the government’s compelling interest, acting in its unique capacity as an employer, in maintaining an efficient, competent, and impartial workforce that is free from political corruption and coercion.
The Court reasoned that the government has a right to protect its machinery from being used for partisan ends and to protect its employees from political pressure. In weighing these interests, the Court has consistently found that the government’s need to ensure the integrity of the civil service is significant enough to justify the limited restrictions the Hatch Act places on employee speech.
Ongoing Criticisms and Adaptation
Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, the debate over the Hatch Act is far from settled. The 1993 Hatch Act Reform Amendments, which significantly liberalized off-duty political activity for most employees, can be seen as Congress itself recalibrating this balance in favor of more speech, acknowledging that the original, stricter law was no longer necessary to achieve the government’s core interests.
Today, the rise of the internet and social media is forcing another re-evaluation. Critics argue that the law’s broad prohibitions are difficult to apply consistently in the digital age and can easily lead to inadvertent violations by employees who are simply engaging in online discourse.
The central question remains whether the current rules, when applied to new forms of communication, still represent a “reasonable” balance, or if they have become overly restrictive and “chill” speech that poses no real threat to government integrity.
This demonstrates that the balance struck by the Hatch Act is not a static, one-time decision but an ongoing negotiation between competing constitutional values that must adapt to a constantly evolving society.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
