A former Federal Communications Commission staffer whose name has been floated to fill an FCC commissioner vacancy may have violated the Hatch Act several times during his brief tenure at the agency earlier this year. Beginning in April, Gavin Wax served as Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to former Commissioner Nathan Simington, who unexpectedly resigned in June. Following his departure, Simington endorsed Wax as his replacement. Throughout Wax’s tenure, he apparently engaged in prohibited partisan activities that also, at minimum, created the appearance of the improper use of his official position. While, following recent changes, current policy does not allow for enforcement of violations against Wax as a former employee, these behaviors should preclude his nomination to the role of Commissioner.  

These behaviors illustrate how important it is that appointments to senior positions, including FCC Commissioner vacancies, be filled by individuals who adhere to rules of neutrality and proper use of their position for the public interest. FCC Commissioners set policy, regulate and oversee operations of interstate and international communications, influencing how information is conveyed to the American public. Their role must not be influenced by partisanship or abuse of power. 

The Hatch Act prohibits employees from engaging in partisan political activities while acting in their official status, including during duty hours and in other instances when the public might perceive that their statements or actions carry the weight of the government’s support of their personal political views. The prohibition includes endorsing candidates for partisan office, advocating for candidates for partisan office and supporting partisan groups. Wax’s actions drew his commitment to ensuring the neutrality required by federal law into question, specifically by using a social media account related to his work to promote partisanship. 

Under Office of Special Counsel (OSC) guidance, these rules extend to employees’ personal activities, including their use of personal social media accounts, if those accounts are used in a way that implies they are government communications. Personal accounts that identify the account holder as a federal employee, use photographs of the employee’s official activities or post content related to official activities give rise to questions that may suggest to the public that the account is a communications tool of that individual on behalf of the government and therefore Hatch Act rules apply. As a government employee, Wax posted on an account that identified him as a government employee, commented on FCC policy and promoted other Trump administration work.

During his time at FCC, Wax used his official government portrait for the FCC as his X (formerly Twitter) account portrait and featured a header picture of him seated with President Trump. Prior to his apparent departure after Commissioner Simington’s resignation, Wax’s profile attempted to designate the account as personal, but only as a final note in the profile that more prominently featured his role as a Trump administration official. In addition, he used the account for numerous posts related to his official duties at the FCC and official activities and proposals by the FCC or Commissioner Simington during his tenure, many of which were posted during regular duty hours.

Wax’s Hatch Act problems began when he also used this account to repost messages, including one endorsing a partisan candidate’s campaign for public office and others promoting the New York Young Republican Club and the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He also promoted an op-ed that he authored, advocating for the outcome of future elections promoting Vice President Vance as a potential presidential candidate. Messages that refer to partisan politics that were posted during typical duty hours while Wax was employed at the FCC suggest a willingness to disregard the Hatch Act and promote partisan politics using official time and resources.

Wax’s engagement in partisan politics and the violations that may have resulted can no longer be enforced since he left federal service. Under rules put in place by OSC in 2024, former employees could have been investigated and held accountable for such conduct after they left office. But shortly after taking office, the Trump administration removed the Special Counsel who sought to improve accountability of federal employees, and then in April rescinded the 2024 policy, meaning that now, employees who violate these rules cannot be held accountable if they resign.

Wax’s example highlights the effect of the Trump administration’s removal of enforcement and accountability safeguards at agencies and the consequences of eroding the independence of agencies that Congress established to act free from political influence. As has been reported, the FCC is at risk of being used to wield significant influence and control of information that is broadcast under FCC jurisdiction, including radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. Given the president’s campaign announcement stating his intention to exercise more direct control over the FCC, the possibility of installing a commissioner who is willing to use his position to advance his partisan beliefs threatens the integrity of and public trust in the FCC’s operations going forward.  

The implications of elevating a prominent political appointee who has demonstrated such potential legal violations demonstrate the need for a robust vetting process of future appointees to the Commission to ensure that new members are committed to follow the law and its limitations on their role as public officials.  

Photo of Gavin Wax from Twitter/X

Read More in Investigations