Less than a year after issuing an opinion closing a loophole that enabled White House staff to avoid the disciplinary process for violations of the Hatch Act’s prohibitions on partisan political activity, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has rescinded that historic decision. With that reversal, OSC also reverted to its previous rule permitting agency employees to wear or display partisan campaign items related to candidates in the workplace and on duty so long as the items did not relate to a current candidate. 

The Hatch Act, a nearly century-old federal statute, prevents executive branch employees from using or advancing partisan politics in the course of administering federal programs and operations. Congress passed the law as a rejection of the “spoils system” that had allowed the winner of an election to reward political supporters with jobs, which historically resulted in government officials basing decisions on preference to loyalists rather than in the interest of the nation as a whole. The enforcement of rules limiting politicization in government means that citizens know that their political views will not interfere with their ability to participate in government programs, regardless of who won an election.   

With its latest opinion issued in April 2025, OSC has relinquished a significant tool for holding some top federal officials accountable if they undermine neutrality in government administration and returned to relaxed restrictions on politicization of the workplace through display of presidential campaign paraphernalia. Ahead of this, President Trump abruptly fired former Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, less than a year into his tenure, a leadership change that further reflects an erosion of independence and nonpartisanship at an agency that Congress established specifically to ensure a neutral and merit-based civil service.

In a May 2024 opinion, which appears to have been removed from the OSC website but is reported upon here, OSC changed its practice of enforcement against White House staff, stating that it will now pursue disciplinary action with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) against White House officials for violations of the Hatch Act.  That matched OSC’s typical enforcement process for Hatch Act violations by lower level federal agency employees and signaled an important shift toward holding all executive officials equally accountable for keeping partisan politics out of agency operations. Previously, OSC had treated White House staff under an exception from standard enforcement proceedings that the law specifically reserved for cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking political appointees who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, referring the findings of violation to the president to impose disciplinary measures at his discretion.  

Historically, presidents of both parties have almost never enforced OSC recommendations beyond merely counseling the employee, even in cases of clear and repeated violations. This practice meant that politically connected government employees like Kellyanne Conway, who became the first White House staffer OSC ever recommended for removal from public service, could avoid accountability despite egregious violations. Meanwhile low level civil servants often faced discipline for less significant misconduct. These changes signaled an effort to ensure that the political preferences of government officials would not seep into government operations at the highest levels, but the latest opinion has reversed that progress.

Additionally, the May 2024 opinion announced that OSC would continue to refer cases of Hatch Act violations to the MSPB even after employees left federal service, ensuring that employees who broke the law would not escape accountability by merely changing jobs. The April 2025 opinion announced a pause pending ongoing litigation on that practice, which effectively permits officials who were the subject of ongoing investigations from a previous administration or any employee in the current administration with a pending investigation who since left their positions to evade consequences for any violations.

Finally, the May 2024 opinion established a new policy regarding partisan items in the workplace, barring the wearing or display of items related to candidates in the previous presidential election. The April 2025 opinion reinstated OSC’s previous rule that agency officials could wear or display items related to any previous candidate after Election Day was over and the individual was no longer a candidate, which reopened the door for politicized federal workplaces that are likely to continue undermining the public’s trust in the integrity of public services. In practical terms, this means that now that President Trump is a two-term president constitutionally barred from running for a third term, federal officials could be permitted to brand government material with the MAGA campaign slogan or that defiant civil servants could promote their preferred candidate’s campaign in attempts to subvert the current administration—neither of which can be acceptable in the federal government.    

This course reversal and its implications for the politicization of executive branch operations is underscored by President Trump’s removal of Special Counsel Dellinger within three weeks of Trump taking office. Although the district court reinstated Dellinger following a legal challenge of his removal because it included no explanation, citing the legal requirement that special counsels may be removed “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” the court of appeals reversed that decision and permitted the White House to remove him. In February, the President named Doug Collins—the Administration’s Secretary of Veterans Affairs—as the Acting Special Counsel, at a time when public reporting indicated that “over a quarter of [OSC] cases come from his own [VA] employees.” The White House later named Jamieson Greer, who also simultaneously serves as the U.S. Trade Representative and as Acting Director of the Office of Government Ethics, as the current Acting Special Counsel. The White House has since nominated and subsequently withdrawn the nomination of Charlton Allen to lead OSC and now nominated Paul Ingrassia, meaning that these critical policy reversals have been implemented by acting, non-Senate confirmed officials while leadership remains in flux.  

This series of events—a historic decision toward equitable accountability in a nonpartisan civil service and depoliticization of the federal workplace, then the removal of an independent agency head without the required cause mandated by Congress, followed by temporary leadership reinstating a process permitting the president to determine the fate of those with some of the most influential positions in government—illustrates the critical need to eliminate partisanship in the administration of federal programs. 

These actions are all taking place at a time where President Trump has openly mused about seeking election a third time despite the clear prohibition in the 22nd Amendment, making adherence to the Hatch Act’s rules against the use of the federal workforce as a campaign tool all the more important. Congress passed the Hatch Act as a culmination of civil service reforms to prevent politicization of the federal workforce. It later established OSC as an independent agency, structured such that its leadership would not be determined by the outcome of a presidential election, but rather would serve without regard to partisan politics. Under the Hatch Act, OSC itself is subject to the strictest of prohibitions on partisan political activity, reflecting how crucial it is that the agency serve without preference of political party. Yet, its most recent actions suggest that partisanship and political favoritism will now be permitted to continue with minimal consequences.