New Act Demands OSC Publish Demographic Data on Federal Employee Political Activity Allegations

This bill, the Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act, is essentially a major overhaul of how the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) handles and reports on alleged violations of the Hatch Act—the law that limits political activity for most federal employees. Think of it as putting the OSC’s internal investigation processes under a massive new spotlight, especially when it comes to political appointees.

The New Rules for Political Appointees

The core of the bill is focused on separating how the government handles career civil servants versus “noncareer employees”—the political appointees. The bill defines these two groups clearly (SEC. 2). If you’re a long-term federal worker who got your job through the merit system, you’re a career employee. If you were appointed by the President or hold a similar non-merit position, you’re in the noncareer camp.

Here’s the kicker: The OSC now has to report to Congress every six months on every single time they decide not to investigate a complaint against a noncareer employee (SEC. 3). This report, which goes to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, must include a copy of the actual complaint and the employee’s name and job title. If the OSC decides not to prosecute a noncareer employee, they must issue a written explanation for that decision (SEC. 5). This means that for political appointees, the decision to drop a case is no longer a quiet administrative matter; it becomes a detailed, documented political discussion handed directly to congressional leadership.

Public Data and Demographic Reporting

For the rest of us—and the public—the biggest change is the new requirement for the OSC to publish detailed statistics on its website (SEC. 5). This isn't just a simple tally; it’s a deep dive into enforcement data that must stay online for at least 10 years.

The OSC must break down the number of allegations received, investigations launched, and formal complaints filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Crucially, these statistics must be broken down by whether the employee was career or noncareer, and then further by race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, and disability status (SEC. 5). To do this, agencies like the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must hand over this sensitive demographic data to the OSC upon request.

What This Means on the Ground

For the government itself, this bill creates a massive new administrative burden. The OSC will need to track, organize, and report sensitive personnel data in ways it hasn't before. For federal employees, especially noncareer appointees, the scrutiny is ratcheted up. If an allegation comes in, even if it’s frivolous or ultimately dropped, the details of that allegation—including the employee's title—are now being funneled directly to key political players in Congress (SEC. 3).

While the goal is transparency, this level of detailed, confidential reporting on unsubstantiated allegations to select partisan leaders creates a risk of political targeting. Meanwhile, the public release of demographic data on enforcement is intended to highlight potential bias, which is a good thing for accountability. But it also means that the entire federal workforce is now under a new level of statistical watch, which could create a chilling effect, making employees wary of engaging in any political speech out of fear of being included in the next public statistical report.