SEER Act Closes Ethics Loopholes for Part-Time Federal Workers: Waivers and Conflicts Now Public

The SEER Act 2025 is tackling a quiet but important corner of government ethics: the rules for “special Government employees” (SGEs). Think of SGEs as the part-time experts—consultants, academics, or industry specialists—who come in to advise federal agencies. The bill’s main goal is to increase transparency and close loopholes that currently allow many of these part-time workers to operate with less scrutiny than their full-time counterparts.

Why Your Part-Time Advisor Needs Full-Time Ethics

Congress noticed a problem: While SGEs are covered by conflict-of-interest laws, they often get a pass that full-time staff don’t. Specifically, they don't have to resolve conflicts if the matter they are working on isn't highly specific. The SEER Act addresses this by requiring that if an SGE gets a waiver to bypass a conflict—which essentially means the government knows they have a conflict but lets them work anyway—that waiver must be posted publicly online within 14 days (SEC. 3). This is a big win for accountability, letting the public see exactly when and why an exception is being made for a part-time official with outside interests.

The New Rules for Talking to Agencies

One of the most significant changes affects SGEs who have financial ties to massive corporations. Section 4 introduces a strict communication ban: If you are an SGE (and not on an advisory committee) and you own stock in, or are a senior executive at, a “large company,” you cannot have any official conversation with a government agency that contracts with, regulates, or is investigating that company. A “large company” is defined as one with over $1 billion in market value or revenue, or a major Federal contractor earning over $100 million annually from the government. This is designed to prevent a part-time government expert from using their position to influence an agency on behalf of their private financial interests. The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) now has the job of writing the rules on what exactly counts as “ownership” here, which is a crucial detail that will determine how effective this restriction is.

Tracking the Consultants: The 130-Day Clock

Currently, there’s a concern that some SGEs are essentially doing full-time senior staff work while keeping their part-time status to avoid full ethics scrutiny. The SEER Act sets hard limits based on days served. If an SGE works more than 60 days in a year, they are subject to all the standard federal ethics rules that apply to regular employees. If they hit the 130-day mark, they become subject to even stricter rules, including those governing post-employment restrictions (SEC. 8). This means that if you’re a consultant who keeps getting called back for “temporary” work, you’ll quickly cross a threshold where you’re treated just like a permanent federal employee for ethics purposes.

To keep tabs on this, the bill mandates a new public, searchable database of SGEs who aren't on advisory committees. This database must list their name and a running total of the days they’ve served, allowing anyone to verify if an SGE is approaching or exceeding those 60- or 130-day limits (SEC. 5). For the busy citizen, this is the tool that lets you check if that high-level advisor is staying within the ethical bounds of their part-time status.

The Trade-Off: Less Protection in Specific Areas

While the bill tightens transparency, it also narrows one conflict rule for SGEs who are not on advisory committees. Under the new rules, the standard conflict restriction only applies if the matter they are working on involves a “specific, identifiable part of a project” where they know their outside organization has a financial stake (SEC. 3). This could be interpreted as a slight weakening of the general conflict protection, meaning that unless the SGE is working on a very narrow piece of business, they might still be able to advise the government on issues where their employer has a broader financial interest. It’s a trade-off: more transparency on waivers, but a narrower application of the conflict rule itself for non-advisory SGEs.