New Act Forces Public Disclosure of Federal Ethics Enforcement Data, Including Race and Sex of Accused Employees

The newly proposed Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act is essentially a major overhaul of how the federal government’s ethics watchdog, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), reports on political activity violations. The Hatch Act limits what federal employees can do politically, and this bill is all about pulling back the curtain—way back—on who gets accused of breaking those rules and why the OSC decides to investigate (or not).

Defining the Players: Career vs. Noncareer

First, the bill clears up a critical distinction by formally defining two groups of federal workers: Career Employees (the vast majority of civil servants hired through standard merit processes) and Noncareer Employees (political appointees and others whose jobs aren't based on standard merit hiring, like those appointed directly by the President). This distinction is key because the new transparency rules hit the noncareer group much harder.

The Watchdog’s New Homework: Explaining Decisions

This is where things get interesting. Currently, the OSC has discretion over which Hatch Act complaints it investigates. Under this new bill, if the OSC decides not to file a formal complaint against a noncareer employee with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)—the body that handles discipline—the OSC must now provide a detailed, written explanation for that decision (SEC. 5). Think of it as a mandatory public memo explaining why they let a politically appointed official off the hook. This requirement is waived only for the most senior appointees requiring Senate confirmation, which means scrutiny focuses mainly on mid-level political staff.

Furthermore, the Special Counsel must start sending Congress reports every six months detailing every single complaint they received against a noncareer employee that they chose not to investigate. This report must include a copy of the original complaint and the employee’s name and job title (SEC. 3). For those busy people in Congress, this means a steady stream of raw, uninvestigated accusations about political staff. This level of detail, while aimed at accountability, could easily be weaponized if those raw complaints leak or are used for political targeting.

The Data Drop: Public Stats with Demographics

Perhaps the most significant change for public transparency is the new requirement for the OSC to publish detailed statistics on its website for at least ten years (SEC. 5). This isn't just a count of cases; the data must be broken down by fiscal year, separating career and noncareer employees, and showing the total number of allegations received, investigations started, and formal complaints filed.

Crucially, the OSC must include demographic data—specifically race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, and disability status—for the employees involved in these allegations. To get this data, the OSC is given the authority to request it from other federal agencies that already collect it. While the goal might be to identify potential bias in enforcement (e.g., are certain demographics disproportionately targeted?), this public-facing requirement creates a new layer of scrutiny for noncareer employees, whose enforcement statistics will be published alongside their demographic profile. This is the kind of data that could create a chilling effect, making some political appointees think twice about any political activity, even if it’s legally permitted, because of the risk of being included in a public data set that tracks their demographic information.