Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is the subject of a Hatch Act complaint over a speech he gave in August at a Michigan super PAC event, where, the complaint alleges, he mixed Transportation Department business with a pitch to vote Republican. Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF), which litigates against the Trump administration, filed the Duffy Hatch Act complaint with the Office of Special Counsel on Sept. 10, according to Government Executive.
Where it stands: No ruling exists. OSC confirmed to Government Executive in September that it had received the complaint and offered no other comment, and as of Oct. 28 it had announced no result.
The department rejects the accusation. A DOT spokesperson called the filing “another baseless political attack” and said “The secretary’s participation was in his personal capacity and consistent with longstanding practice for presidential appointees.” A department representative later told The New York Times that Duffy follows every ethics law and rule that applies to him.
What is the Duffy Hatch Act complaint about?
The filing is about how Duffy talked, not about whether he could appear. Government Executive summarized it this way: “On Sept. 10, Democracy Defenders Fund, a legal organization that is focused on countering the Trump administration, filed a Hatch Act complaint against Duffy over an August speech he gave at a super PAC event supporting GOP candidates in Michigan in which he discussed department business and urged attendees to vote for Republican candidates.”
DDF’s own reasoning, as quoted by the outlet, concedes the starting point: “Although Secretary Duffy is not prohibited from engaging in political activity in his personal capacity, he cannot use his official authority to influence an election.” The group then argues: “That is, however, exactly what Secretary Duffy did when he spoke extensively about official government matters during a political speech.” We could not locate the complaint document itself, so its full exhibits, the super PAC’s name and Duffy’s exact words are not described here.
This is not the first ethics question raised about the secretary. Government Executive noted earlier complaints over a since-deleted post on a DOT social media account that promoted a book by his wife, and over an online travel show with his family that had sponsors among businesses his department oversees. The department said the book post was “inadvertently retweeted” by a staff member, and Duffy has said ethics officials cleared his role in the series. Those matters are separate from the Michigan speech, and we found no finding against him in either.
Is Mike Rogers part of the complaint?
That connection comes from one outlet. In its Oct. 28 story, the Times reported: “In Michigan, Sean Duffy, the transportation secretary, personally endorsed Mike Rogers, the Republican Senate candidate, arguing that Mr. Rogers would help advance his department’s work.” Government Executive’s account of the filing does not name Rogers, and other outlets had not independently reported the Rogers link as of Oct. 28.
The stakes explain the attention. Michigan’s seat is open: “When outgoing Sen. Gary Peters made the surprise announcement that he would not seek reelection, it left an open Senate seat in one of the country’s most competitive states,” FOX 7 reported. Rogers, the Republican nominee, faces Democrat Abdul El-Sayed; the station describes Rogers as follows: “Rogers, 63, an Army veteran and former FBI agent, served in Congress for 14 years and chaired the House Intelligence Committee.” The same race drew a separate complaint over an FBI video, covered in our piece on the FBI’s El-Sayed post.
| Item | What the record shows |
|---|---|
| Event | August speech, Michigan super PAC event |
| Filer | Democracy Defenders Fund |
| Filed | Sept. 10, per Government Executive |
| Rogers link | Reported by the Times only |
| DOT response | Baseless; personal capacity |
| OSC status | Receipt confirmed; no finding |
Can a cabinet secretary endorse a candidate?
Yes, in a personal capacity. The statute starts from permission, saying that “an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not—” and then lists the exceptions. The first is the one DDF invokes: an employee may not “use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”
OSC’s public guidance shows what personal capacity looks like in practice. Its FAQ says “A less restricted employee is allowed to give a speech or keynote address at a political fundraiser, as long as he or she is not on duty, appears only in his or her personal capacity, and does not solicit political contributions,” and adds that “Invitations to the fundraiser may not include the employee’s official title.” The governing regulation lists, among banned uses of authority, “Using his or her official title while participating in political activity;” according to 5 CFR part 734.
The point of friction is the content of a speech. In its 2021 report on the previous Trump administration, OSC wrote that cabinet officials speaking politically on their own time “must avoid talking about the work of their agencies to ensure that they do not mix their official work with their personal political activity.” It gave the reason: “This is so officials do not implicitly or explicitly rely upon their official authority to strengthen the impact of their political activity, which would constitute a prohibited use of their official authority to interfere with or affect an election.” Our guide to the personal capacity line covers the rule in more depth.
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
Has OSC ruled on an endorsement like this before?
Yes, in a 2012 case involving a Democratic cabinet member. OSC concluded that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius violated the Act with remarks at a February 2012 gala in Charlotte. Its report states: “Because she made this endorsement in her official capacity as HHS Secretary, she violated the Hatch Act.” The same report restated the general rule for such officials: “However, they must do so in their personal capacities and the costs associated with their political activity must not be paid with money derived from the United States Treasury.”
That precedent turned on facts OSC found about one appearance. It says nothing about Duffy’s speech, and DOT’s position is that his August appearance was personal, in line with how presidential appointees have long handled such events.
What could happen to the complaint?
OSC may dismiss the file, dig further, or put its conclusions in writing. Even then, the penalty decision for a Senate-confirmed secretary belongs to President Trump, the recipient of any such report. As of mid-September, Government Executive found that OSC “does not appear to have issued any findings yet concerning the potentially prohibited activities of senior administration appointees.” The Duffy matter is one of several listed in our tracker of 2025-26 complaints.
The most recent statement on record is DOT’s, given to the Times for its Oct. 28 story, that the secretary abides by all applicable ethics laws, rules and regulations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who filed the Hatch Act complaint against Sean Duffy?
Democracy Defenders Fund, a legal organization focused on countering the Trump administration, filed it with the Office of Special Counsel on Sept. 10, according to Government Executive.
Did Sean Duffy violate the Hatch Act?
No authority has found that he did. The complaint is an allegation, the Transportation Department calls it baseless, and OSC had announced no finding as of Oct. 28, 2026.
Did Duffy endorse Mike Rogers?
The New York Times reported that he personally endorsed Rogers, the Republican Senate nominee in Michigan. Government Executive’s account of the complaint does not name Rogers.
Can cabinet members campaign for candidates?
Yes, in a personal capacity. They may not use their official title or authority to affect an election, and OSC has advised them to avoid discussing their agencies’ work in political speeches.
Who would discipline Duffy if OSC found a violation?
The President. Federal law routes OSC complaints about Senate-confirmed appointees to the White House instead of the Merit Systems Protection Board, so any penalty is his decision.
Sources
- Hatch Act complaints against Trump officials continue to pile up as investigations go on for nearly a year — Government Executive, September 14, 2026
- Cabinet Officials on the Campaign Trail? Ethics Experts Say Some Are Breaking the Law. — The New York Times, October 28, 2026
- 5 U.S.C. Chapter 73, Subchapter III: Political Activities — U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), 2023 edition
- 5 CFR Part 734: Political Activities of Federal Employees — eCFR (Office of the Federal Register), current as of October 27, 2026
- Investigation of Political Activities by Senior Trump Administration Officials During the 2020 Presidential Election — U.S. Office of Special Counsel, November 9, 2021
- Hatch Act FAQs — U.S. Office of Special Counsel, retrieved October 28, 2026
- Report of Prohibited Political Activity Under the Hatch Act, OSC File No. HA-12-1989 (Kathleen Sebelius) — U.S. Office of Special Counsel, September 2012
- Michigan’s 2026 Senate race: What to know about Abdul El-Sayed vs Mike Rogers — FOX 7 Austin (FOX Television Stations), October 2026
This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.