The Justice Department Is Lowering Its Ethical Guardrails

Ed. note: We don’t normally publish op-eds like this, but given the gravity of the ethical issues coming out of the Justice Department, we are lucky to present this timely report and analysis from the former director of the DOJ’s Departmental Ethics Office, Joseph Tirrell.

The Department of Justice recently changed a long-standing policy that limited the political activity of its senior political appointees.[1] At first glance, the shift may appear technical. In reality, it removes an important safeguard designed to protect public confidence in the fairness of American elections.

I spent 19 years at the Justice Department. In my final role, as senior ethics counsel and director of the department’s ethics office, I trained employees on the Hatch Act, advised leadership on compliance and helped enforce its rules. For more than two decades, the department treated its political appointees as “further restricted” employees under that law — a designation grounded in a straightforward principle: officials responsible for enforcing election laws must be held to the highest standard of political neutrality.

The Hatch Act is the primary federal law intended to shield elections from inappropriate political influence by government employees. Most federal workers are considered “less restricted” under the law. They are free to participate widely in political life in their personal capacities. They may volunteer for campaigns, attend rallies, distribute campaign messages on social media and participate in party organizations.

But even these employees face limits. They may not engage in political activity while on duty or in the workplace, solicit campaign contributions, run for partisan office or use their official positions to influence the outcome of an election.

A smaller group of federal employees — those whose work involves investigations, prosecutions or election oversight — are classified as “further restricted.” This group includes employees of the F.B.I., the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and the Federal Election Commission. In addition to the basic Hatch Act restrictions, these employees may not work on campaigns, distribute campaign materials or hold leadership roles in political parties. Their political participation is largely limited to voting, donating to campaigns and expressing personal opinions.

The distinction reflects a deliberate balance. The government recognizes the political rights of its employees while also protecting the integrity of institutions that must enforce election laws impartially.

More than half a century ago, the Supreme Court affirmed that balance in United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers. Upholding the Hatch Act in 1973, the court emphasized that “the impartial execution of the laws” is the “great end of government.”

The logic is easy to understand. Imagine if commissioners at the Federal Election Commission were free to run campaign operations for candidates whose cases might later appear before them. Or if F.B.I. agents responsible for investigating election crimes were also serving as leaders in political parties. Even if those officials acted fairly, public confidence in the integrity of elections would quickly erode.

For decades, the Justice Department recognized this risk and applied the stricter standard to its own political leadership. By long-standing order of successive attorneys general, political appointees at the department were treated as “further restricted.” Republican and Democratic administrations alike maintained the policy. In the months leading up to federal elections, department leaders regularly reminded employees that political neutrality was essential to the institution’s credibility.

The reasoning was clear. Senior Justice Department officials oversee matters that directly affect elections, including election security, campaign finance enforcement and civil rights protections at the ballot box. They also speak publicly on behalf of the department about these issues. Allowing these officials to work on political campaigns — even in their personal capacity — blurs the line between impartial law enforcement and partisan advocacy.

Leadership by example matters as well. When those at the top accept stricter limits on their own political activity, they reinforce the expectation that the entire department must remain above partisan politics.

The new policy abandons that tradition.

The likely consequences are not difficult to foresee. Senior officials will test the boundaries of their expanded political freedom. Some will publicly support candidates on social media while insisting they are speaking only as private citizens, even as their government titles lend authority to their words. The distinction between official speech and political advocacy will become harder to maintain.

Once that line begins to blur at the top, the erosion of norms throughout the department becomes almost inevitable. Career employees will see leaders disregarding long-standing standards and begin to question why they alone should continue to observe them.

The risk extends beyond internal discipline. Enforcement of the Hatch Act itself could come to appear selective — vigorously pursued when critics of the administration are involved while violations by allies receive less scrutiny.

More troubling still is the potential impact on election law enforcement. If the public comes to believe that investigations and prosecutions are influenced by partisan considerations, confidence in the fairness of elections will suffer.

The Justice Department’s authority ultimately depends on trust — the belief that prosecutors and investigators enforce the law fairly, without regard to politics. For generations, strict limits on political activity helped sustain that trust.

Weakening those limits threatens to erode it.

Opposition to this change must be loud and clear until the former policy is reinstated. Congress should also consider expanding the definition of “further restricted” employees under the Hatch Act so that officials responsible for safeguarding elections remain insulated from partisan campaign activity. Finally, in preparation for a new administration, an Ethics 2029 playbook must be developed, strengthening not just the Hatch Act, but all of the ethics rules that apply to Federal employees, including the financial conflict of interest statute, and Federal Employee Standards of Conduct regulations, particularly the impartiality rules.

The goal is not to deny public servants their political rights. It is to protect something even more fundamental: a Justice Department that Americans can trust to enforce the law fairly — and to defend the integrity of the nation’s elections without fear or favor.

[1] Castronuovo, Celine. “DOJ Shift on Political Activity Rules Breaks from Past Practice.” Bloomberg Law, March 6, 2026, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/doj-shift-on-political-activity-rules-breaks-from-past-practice.

Joseph W. Tirrell served for 19 years as an attorney with the FBI and the Department of Justice and was Director of the Justice Department’s Departmental Ethics Office from 2023 to 2025. In that role, he advised senior department leadership on federal ethics rules, including the Hatch Act. He was dismissed without cause by Pam Bondi in July 2025.

The post The Justice Department Is Lowering Its Ethical Guardrails appeared first on Above the Law.