Senior members of the Trump Administration have increasingly taken to the campaign trail to support Republican candidates as the party fights to retain control of Congress ahead of the midterm elections. These high-profile political appearances and media statements have sparked a flurry of formal ethics complaints from advocacy groups and legal watchdogs who argue that officials are violating a decades-old federal statute.
In mid-October, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum appeared alongside President Donald Trump at a Wasilla, Alaska, rally to support Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan in his reelection race against Democrat Mary Peltola. Similar appearances followed across the country. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth spoke to manufacturing workers in Wisconsin alongside GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden on Oct. 20 during a Pentagon tour highlighting defense production. Vice President JD Vance and Burgum campaigned in Topeka, Kansas, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio briefly joined the President on stage during an October rally in Corpus Christi, Texas. Months earlier, in August, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy endorsed Michigan Senate candidate Mike Rogers.
Legal experts and advocacy organizations contend that these activities violate the Hatch Act, an 87-year-old federal law passed by Congress in 1939. The statute restricts certain political activities by executive branch employees, prohibiting them from using official authority or influence to interfere with or affect election outcomes. The Office of Special Counsel, which enforces the law, notes it was designed to ensure nonpartisan administration of federal programs and protect employees from workplace political coercion. A key provision forbids federal employees from using or identifying with their official titles while engaging in political activity, a restriction watchdogs claim was breached when officials were introduced at rallies by their Cabinet positions or used official titles in media appearances.
Groups such as The Democracy Defenders Fund and Reporters Without Borders filed complaints over the Alaska rally, alleging that Carr mixed official work into personal remarks. Another complaint targeted Duffy’s endorsement in Michigan. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed separate complaints alleging that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and FBI Director Kash Patel violated the law through partisan comments made during television interviews on .
.jpg?branch=production)
Kedric Payne, head of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, called the volume of complaints abnormal for an election cycle. “The number of Hatch Act violation complaints is extreme and abnormal for election time, especially for complaints against senior officials,” Payne said, adding that enforcement delays risk opening the law to abuse.
The Trump Administration has consistently pushed back against the accusations. White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis defended the officials’ actions, stating that it has long been established that senior administration officials are allowed to discuss current events, policies, and related candidates to advance the administration’s agenda. Administration officials maintain that they participated in political events strictly in a personal capacity, without taxpayer funds, and after clearing their actions with ethics counsel and career officials. The Department of Health and Human Services similarly dismissed the complaints against Kennedy as a manufactured political attack.
Beyond campaign rallies and media appearances, complaints have targeted other administrative actions. The Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint accusing officials including Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and White House Appointments Secretary Natalie Harp of using taxpayer resources for political advertisements promoting partisan rhetoric. Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, argued that government-funded ads touting the administration constituted prohibited propaganda. Trump defended the advertisements, stating in September that he was promoting the spirit of the country rather than specific candidates.
A separate complaint from the Democracy Defenders Fund targeted the Justice Department’s October raid on the home of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar in Minnesota, which critics alleged was timed to influence the election. Trump maintained he had nothing to do with the investigation, while continuing public attacks against Omar.
Enforcing Hatch Act violations among senior officials presents structural hurdles. Following an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, disciplinary measures for Cabinet officials are referred to the President, who determines any accountability. Payne noted that consequences under a sitting president are often minimal, potentially limited to a public apology or no action at all, echoing past controversies such as the 2018 findings against former counselor Kellyanne Conway. While federal employees can face civil penalties such as fines or suspensions, or criminal penalties up to three years in prison for coercion, accountability often lags until officials leave office.
