The Hatch Act

What Is the Hatch Act

The Hatch Act is the 1939 law that keeps the federal government nonpartisan by limiting the political activity of executive-branch employees. It protects the idea that public servants work for the public, not for whoever holds the White House, so a clerk processing your benefits is not pressured to campaign for the boss’s party. It is codified at 5 U.S.C. sections 7321 to 7326 and was updated by the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012.

The single most important fact about the law is who it leaves out. The President and the Vice President are statutorily exempt, because the statute’s definition of “employee” excludes them. A president cannot violate the Hatch Act. His appointees can, and he is the one who decides whether they face any consequence.

Who It Covers and What It Bans

The Hatch Act sorts federal workers into two tiers, and the line decides how much political activity a person may do. Most employees are “less restricted” and may take part in partisan politics on their own time, off government property. A smaller “further restricted” group, including the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and career senior executives, may not actively manage partisan campaigns at any time. The President and Vice President sit outside both tiers.

The law does not ban politics. It bans using the job for politics. That distinction is easy to state plainly.

The penalties differ sharply by who you are, and that difference is where the law starts to break down. A career employee can be removed from federal service, demoted, barred for up to five years, or fined. For the highest appointees, as the next sections show, the practical penalty is often nothing at all.

From a 1938 Scandal to Today

The Hatch Act grew out of a long fight to take politics out of government jobs, and the law has swung between building guardrails and loosening them. The merit system began with the 1883 Pendleton Act, the Hatch Act itself arrived in 1939 after the 1938 relief-worker scandals, the 1993 amendments loosened the rules for most employees, the 2012 modernization adjusted penalties, and in 2025 the watchdog reversed its own enforcement policy.

1883: The Pendleton Civil Service Act created the federal merit system, replacing the spoils system in which jobs went to political supporters. The push followed the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield by a man who had been denied a government post.

1939: President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Hatch Act, sponsored by Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico, after the 1938 scandals in which federal relief workers in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Maryland were pressured into campaigning. Its formal name was “An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities.”

1993: The Hatch Act Reform Amendments loosened the rules, letting most federal employees take part in partisan political activity off duty. This is why federal workers today keep their basic political rights.

2012: The Hatch Act Modernization Act adjusted the penalty structure and the rules covering state and local employees paid with federal funds.

2025: The Office of Special Counsel reversed a key enforcement policy and stopped referring Hatch Act violations by White House appointees to the board that adjudicates cases. This is the modern turn the rest of the page traces.

The Enforcement Gap

The Hatch Act has a built-in escape hatch for the people at the top. For a career employee, the Office of Special Counsel investigates a violation and the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent tribunal, can impose real discipline. For a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee, that path closes. The office cannot take the case to the board. It can only report its findings to the President, who then decides whether his own appointee faces any penalty.

The result is a law that is largely unenforceable against top officials whenever the President declines to act. The numbers make the gap concrete.

Kellyanne Conway is the clearest example of how the gap works in practice. In June 2019 the Office of Special Counsel found she had repeatedly violated the Act and recommended that the President remove her from federal service. He took no action, and she stayed in her post until August 2020. Watchdogs counted the violations differently, with more than 50 by CREW’s count, but the outcome was the same regardless of the tally.

The double standard is built in. A clerk who solicits a campaign donation from her desk can be fired. A senior adviser found to be a repeat violator can keep her job, because the only person who can discipline her is the President she was campaigning for.

Enforcement Is Failing in 2025 and 2026

The thin enforcement of the Hatch Act grew thinner in 2025, when the watchdog’s independence and its core referral practice were both stripped away. Hampton Dellinger, the Senate-confirmed Special Counsel, was fired on February 7, 2025, even though the statute allows removal only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. After a court ruled for him on March 1 and an appeals court lifted that order on March 5, Dellinger ended the fight on March 6, 2025. The President can now remove the head of the office at will, which breaks the independence Congress wrote into the law.

The bigger blow came in April. On April 25, 2025, the office stopped referring Hatch Act violations by White House appointees to the Merit Systems Protection Board and began sending them only to the President, so the President effectively judges his own staff. The office also loosened the rule on campaign paraphernalia and paused enforcement against former employees. Groups including CREW and POGO called it a reversal of historic progress.

The shutdown shut the watchdog itself. During the October 2025 government shutdown, the office’s Hatch Act Unit was furloughed, with about 105 of 122 staff sent home, and the Merit Systems Protection Board ceased operations. In the same window, the Education Department sent partisan out-of-office emails blaming “Democrat Senators” for the shutdown, a textbook violation with no functioning office to catch it.

Watchdogs now describe the Hatch Act as effectively unenforceable against top officials while rank-and-file workers still face discipline. A reform bill, the Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act (H.R. 1688 and S. 806), would restore independent enforcement against all officials, but it remains in committee. As of June 2026, Charles Baldis has been nominated for permanent Special Counsel and is awaiting Senate confirmation.

This sits next to a separate effort that points the same direction. Schedule F, finalized in February 2026 as “Schedule Policy/Career,” would strip civil-service protections from tens of thousands of employees, a parallel move toward a more political workforce.

Both Parties Have Broken It

The Hatch Act is not a partisan weapon, and the violation record proves it. Officials in both parties have been cited, which is exactly why the problem is the rule and its enforcement, not one side. Naming the record honestly is the strongest case for fixing the law, because a reform protects every future administration and its opponents alike.

The pattern is consistent across different presidencies. When the only check on a top appointee is the President’s own willingness to act, the result depends on politics rather than law. That is true no matter which party holds the White House, which is why the fix has to apply to everyone.

Not Every Political Comment Breaks It

The Hatch Act does not turn federal employees into political mutes, and overstating it weakens the case for enforcing it. The 1993 reforms deliberately preserved the basic political rights of the workforce. A federal worker can vote, donate, join a party, put a sign in the yard, and campaign on personal time. The Act bans using the job, on-duty time, government property, an official title, or the power to solicit, for partisan ends.

Three fair distinctions keep the line clear. An off-duty private citizen is different from an official acting under color of office. Expressing an opinion is different from soliciting contributions or using authority to swing an election. And there is a real debate worth naming, between people who think the Act is too weak because it is toothless against appointees and people who worry that aggressive enforcement could chill legitimate speech. The reform on the table answers the first concern without touching the off-duty rights the 1993 amendments protect.

Frequently asked questions

Can a president violate the Hatch Act? No. The statute’s definition of “employee” excludes the President and Vice President, so they are exempt. When people say a president broke the Hatch Act, an appointee violated it and the President, who has the power to discipline that appointee, chose not to.

Is the Office of Special Counsel the same as a special counsel at the Justice Department? No. The Office of Special Counsel is an independent watchdog agency that investigates Hatch Act violations and protects whistleblowers. A Justice Department special counsel is a prosecutor appointed to handle a specific criminal investigation. The two have similar names and entirely different jobs.

What happens to a federal worker who violates the Hatch Act? For a career employee, the penalties range from a reprimand to removal from federal service, demotion, a debarment of up to five years, and a civil fine of up to $1,000. The Merit Systems Protection Board adjudicates these cases. For top presidential appointees, the only remedy is a report to the President.

Has Congress proposed a fix? Yes. The Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act, H.R. 1688 and S. 806, would restore independent enforcement against all officials, including White House appointees, and protect the Office of Special Counsel from political removal. Both bills are in committee.

What you can do

1. Ask your House member to co-sponsor H.R. 1688. The Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act would let the watchdog bring cases against top appointees, not just rank-and-file workers. Ask your representative by name to sign on and say so publicly. Use the letter and call script below.

2. Ask your senators to co-sponsor S. 806. The Senate companion does the same work. Tell them the same standard should apply to the powerful and to the people who process your benefits.

3. Ask Congress to protect the Office of Special Counsel’s independence. A watchdog that can be fired at will cannot do its job. Ask your members to support restoring for-cause removal protection so the office can act without fear.

4. Learn how the powers connect. The Hatch Act is one of several rules a president stretches. Our executive orders explainer covers what a president can and cannot do by order, and the bill to law explainer shows where a reform like H.R. 1688 can stall or pass.

5. Write your representative about strengthening Hatch Act enforcement. Use the letter below and ask for a clear, on-the-record position.