Senior officials in the current U.S. administration have increasingly drawn scrutiny for potential violations of the Hatch Act, an 87-year-old law designed to restrict political activities by federal executive branch employees, excluding the president and vice president. Over the past several months, at least nine of the 15 cabinet secretaries, along with other senior deputies, have faced formal accusations of breaching provisions of the law, according to ethics watchdog groups.

These alleged breaches include using official government titles while endorsing political candidates and employing taxpayer resources to produce campaign-related advertisements. Key incidents highlighted involve Attorney General Todd Blanche endorsing a Republican candidate while campaigning alongside former President Donald Trump, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly backing Senate candidate Mike Rogers in a manner linked to his department’s work. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum were also criticized during a rally in Alaska where their official titles were used, an act that watchdog groups argue contravenes the Hatch Act’s restrictions on campaigning in an official capacity.

Advocacy organizations such as the Democracy Defenders Fund and Reporters Without Borders have filed complaints citing these violations. The Democracy Defenders Fund also alleges that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth engaged in improper political endorsements tied to their official roles. While government agencies have defended the officials involved, asserting that campaign appearances were made in personal capacities and complied with legal standards, watchdog groups maintain that these actions undermine the intent of the Hatch Act.

The law aims to prevent partisan politics from influencing government operations, a principle that has historically applied to most executive employees. Enforcement typically falls under the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which historically has acted on Hatch Act violations involving senior officials. However, ethics experts observe a decline in rigorous enforcement during the current administration. The OSC did not pursue sanctions following more than 1,000 complaints related to the 2025 government shutdown, at times revising guidance to narrow the definition of prohibited political activity.

This shift has raised concerns about the weakening of foundational ethics regulations. Experts fear the current environment encourages senior officials to engage in more overt political behavior while using their government platforms. For example, the FBI recently removed a political video attacking Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan after legal complaints, and the timing of a Department of Homeland Security raid on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s residence shortly before an election has been criticized as politically charged.

Some observers call for reforms to modernize and strengthen the Hatch Act. However, significant legislative changes appear unlikely while former President Trump remains in office, given the polarized political climate. In the meantime, ethics organizations will continue monitoring whether public reaction to these infractions influences the conduct of government officials or whether such blurring of official and political roles becomes entrenched.

“This is a pivotal moment for the Hatch Act,” said Abigail Bellows of Common Cause, underscoring the gap between legal frameworks and current political realities. Meanwhile, ethics scholars note that while the law may seem “quaint,” its protections remain crucial for maintaining the separation between governance and partisan campaigning.