SEER Act 2025: 'Special' Gov Insiders Face Tougher Ethics, Public Disclosure & 'Large Company' Contact Limits

The SEER Act 2025 is designed to overhaul ethics rules for individuals known as "special Government employees" (SGEs) – think experts and advisors brought in for temporary government gigs. This bill significantly expands conflict-of-interest regulations under 18 U.S.C. § 208, mandates that waivers for these conflicts become public within 14 days, and restricts how certain SGEs can communicate with agencies dealing with "large companies" if they have a financial stake. The core idea is to boost transparency and accountability for these temporary government insiders, particularly those with substantial outside business interests or high-level responsibilities.

Untangling the Web of 'Special' Government Work

First off, what exactly are "special Government employees" or SGEs? These are folks the government hires for temporary duties, often because they have specific expertise – maybe a scientist advising on a new technology or a business leader consulting on economic policy. The SEER Act 2025, as detailed in its findings (SEC. 2), acknowledges that while many SGEs serve on advisory committees with limited power, some wield significant authority, similar to senior full-time federal employees. The bill aims to address concerns that current rules, like 18 U.S.C. § 208, don't always capture potential financial conflicts if an SGE's work isn't deemed a "particular matter," and that most SGEs don't have to publicly disclose their finances, unlike senior executive branch officials under 5 U.S.C. chapter 131.

Letting the Sunshine In: New Disclosure and Waiver Rules

A big chunk of this bill is about transparency. If an SGE who isn't on an advisory committee (or isn't a chair/vice chair of one) gets a waiver to work on something where their outside business has a financial interest, that waiver isn't staying under wraps. Section 3 of the Act amends 18 U.S.C. § 208(d) to require these waivers to be published in a searchable online database within 14 days of issuance. Imagine an SGE advising on regulations that could affect a company they partly own; if they get a pass to do so, the public will now know. Furthermore, Section 6 beefs up financial disclosure requirements (amending 5 U.S.C. § 13103(f)), meaning more SGEs, unless they're in lower-grade positions (GS9 or below) with limited duties and close supervision, will have to file public financial disclosure reports. This is a shift from the current situation where many SGEs' financial ties remain private.

Drawing Lines with 'Large Companies'

The SEER Act also tries to put some distance between certain SGEs and "large companies." Section 4 introduces a new rule: SGEs (again, those not on advisory committees or chairing them) can't communicate with a government agency if that agency contracts with, regulates, or is taking enforcement action against a "large company" where the SGE is an owner, senior executive, or director. What's a "large company"? The bill defines it in three ways: over $1,000,000,000 in average market cap or revenue in the last 3 years; over $100,000,000 in annual federal revenue in the last 3 years; or having "monopolistic or monopsonistic control" over a market, a definition the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) will flesh out with input from the Attorney General. So, if an SGE is a director at MegaCorp Inc. (which fits the "large company" bill) and MegaCorp is being investigated by Agency X, that SGE can't be calling up Agency X about it. The OGE is tasked with creating regulations for this, including how "ownership" is defined.

Who's Who: A Public Database and Stricter Timers

To make it easier to see who these SGEs are, Section 5 mandates a new, publicly accessible electronic database. This database will list SGEs not serving on an advisory committee (excluding certain intelligence-related SGEs under 5 U.S.C. 13107(a)(1) or (2)), showing their name, how many days they've served, and why they were designated an SGE instead of a regular employee. Think of it as a public roster for these temporary insiders. Additionally, Section 8 tightens the leash on SGEs who stick around. If an SGE works for an agency for more than 60 days in a year, general federal ethics rules will apply to them just like regular employees. If they cross the 130-day mark in a 365-day period (a limit the bill's findings (SEC. 2) suggest has been an issue), then even stricter rules kick in. These include rules about outside pay (section 209 of title 18, United States Code) and limitations on outside earned income (subchapter III of chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code), regardless of whether they are paid or not. This aims to ensure that SGEs who are practically full-time aren't sidestepping the ethics rules meant for permanent staff.

The Nitty-Gritty: Waivers, Exemptions, and Defining Power

While the SEER Act casts a wider net, there are nuances. For instance, waivers for conflicts of interest granted to SGEs will now need "concurrence from a designated official at the Office of Government Ethics" (SEC. 3, amending 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)), adding another layer of oversight. However, SGEs serving on advisory committees (unless they are the chair or vice-chair) are often exempt from some of the toughest new rules, like the communication restrictions with agencies dealing with large companies (SEC. 4) and the mandatory public financial disclosures (SEC. 6). The effectiveness of the bill will partly hinge on how these exemptions are applied and how the OGE interprets its new responsibilities, especially in defining that "monopolistic or monopsonistic control" for large companies (SEC. 4). The goal is clear: reduce potential conflicts and increase transparency, but the details of implementation will matter a lot for how it plays out in the real world for both the SGEs and the public watching them.