DHS Chief Kristi Noem’s TSA Video Triggers Hatch Act Complaints
Government Shutdown Sparks Ethics Firestorm at Airports
Travelers passing through TSA checkpoints in October were met with more than just the usual security instructions. At several major airports, a video from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem played on screens, blaming Democrats in Congress for the ongoing government shutdown and highlighting that most TSA employees were working without pay. The message, delivered with Noem’s polished demeanor, quickly became a flashpoint in a broader debate over the use of federal resources for partisan messaging.
“Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the federal government,” Noem stated in the video, “and because of this, many of our operations are impacted.” The video was intended as a public service announcement, but many airport authorities saw it differently. Las Vegas’s Harry Reid International Airport, among others, refused to air the message, citing concerns that it violated the Hatch Act, a 1939 law that prohibits federal employees from using their positions for partisan political activity.
Partisan Messaging and the Hatch Act
The Hatch Act is designed to keep federal agencies politically neutral, especially when it comes to public communications. According to the law, federal employees cannot use government resources to advocate for or against any political party, candidate, or campaign. The act is enforced by the Office of Special Counsel, but its violations are often met with little more than a stern warning.
Public Citizen, a consumer rights nonprofit, filed a formal complaint against Noem, accusing her of violating the Hatch Act by producing and distributing a taxpayer-funded video that explicitly blamed Democrats for the shutdown. The group also lodged complaints against several other executive agencies, including the Department of Education and Housing and Urban Development, for displaying similar partisan messages on their websites.
Craig Holman, Public Citizen’s Capitol Hill lobbyist on ethics and campaign finance, explained the complexity of enforcing these laws: “We can’t actually sue under the Hatch Act. The enforcement is dictated by the Office of the Special Counsel, not through the courts. So the lawsuit itself is based on First Amendment rights, where agencies changed employee out-of-office messages to preach partisan politics.”
Broader Implications for Federal Ethics
The controversy over Noem’s video is part of a larger pattern of ethics concerns within the current administration. Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer for former President George W. Bush and vice chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, noted that past administrations at least attempted to maintain a veneer of self-oversight. “In the now-demolished East Wing,” he said, referring to Trump’s ballroom project, “we were strict about not endorsing charities in our official capacity.”
Painter added that the current administration’s approach is unprecedented: “President Trump has decided to take advantage of loopholes and make an enormous amount of money for himself, literally reaping at least about $3.4 billion in personal profit by violating the spirit of Title 18, which prohibits the use of congressionally appropriated dollars to influence lawmakers.”
Public Impact and Global Context
The use of federal resources for partisan messaging is not just a legal issue; it has real-world consequences for the public. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over 31,000 TSA employees remained on the job during the shutdown, but a prolonged stalemate could lead to staffing problems as unpaid workers begin to call in sick. During the 35-day shutdown in President Trump’s first term, Miami International Airport had to temporarily close one of its terminals because TSA officers were calling in sick at twice the usual rate.
The broader implications of these actions are significant. As Painter noted, “Paying money to get access to government officials may not be a crime under our criminal statute, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it meets the constitutional definition of bribery.” The framers of the Constitution included broad anti-bribery language and provided the remedy of impeachment for such matters. “Congress isn’t doing its job,” he added.
Why This Matters for the Public
The controversy over Noem’s video and the broader ethics concerns within the administration highlight a growing disregard for basic ethical norms. When the administration leads the charge in using federal channels to blame political opponents, it sets a dangerous precedent. As Holman put it, “When the administration starts spending tax dollars to promote its partisanship, that’s when it crosses the line.”
The only real recourse against such corruption lies in the hands of lawmakers. As the public continues to grapple with the consequences of these actions, the importance of robust ethical oversight and accountability cannot be overstated. The Hatch Act and Title 18 are not just legal technicalities; they are essential safeguards for maintaining the integrity of our government and protecting the public interest.