Hatch Act Social Media Rules: What Officials and Agency Accounts May Post

A two-minute FBI video and a Treasury TikTok clip have put the Hatch Act social media rules at the center of the final stretch of the 2026 midterms. On Oct. 6, the FBI’s Rapid Response account on X posted a video that labeled Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed by party, drawing a same-day complaint from CREW, a Washington ethics watchdog; the FBI then deleted it. On Oct. 17, The Steady State, whose members are former U.S. security officials, asked the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to review the U.S. treasurer’s conduct over a Treasury Department TikTok video. This guide explains what OSC’s written guidance permits on personal and government accounts.

Where it stands: No OSC decision on either complaint had been reported as of Oct. 28. The FBI did not respond to requests for comment from The Hill or The New York Times. A Treasury response to the Steady State complaint was not found in the sources reviewed. The White House and agencies say complaints of this kind are politically motivated, according to the Times. Meanwhile, three of the five rank-and-file settlements OSC announced on Sept. 30 involved social media posts.

What does the Hatch Act social media guidance say?

OSC’s guidance, last revised in February 2018, reduces the law to three rules for all covered employees and a fourth for the most restricted. It is guidance rather than statute, written by the agency that enforces the law.

The three universal rules: no political activity while on duty or in the workplace; no soliciting or receiving political contributions, at any time; and no use of official authority to affect an election, also at any time. “Further restricted” employees, such as those at the FBI, CIA and Secret Service, face a fourth: they are barred from active campaigning, so they may not share or retweet posts from a party or candidate even from home. OSC defines political activity as anything meant to help or hurt a party, a partisan candidate or a partisan group.

The guidance also notes a limit on its reach. “The President and Vice President are not covered under the Hatch Act and, as a result, are not subject to its social media restrictions,” it says. Civilian executive branch employees below them are covered, cabinet secretaries included.

What may employees post on personal accounts?

Location and duty status decide most questions. At home after work, an employee may like or post a message urging a vote for a favored candidate. On duty, the same click is barred. OSC says employees may not post, like or share partisan content on duty or at work “even if their social media account is private.”

OSC’s examples draw fine lines. An employee eating lunch at the office, unpaid, still may not like a candidate’s post, because the employee is in the workplace. A teleworker on an unpaid lunch break at home may. Using an alias changes nothing. Money is the hard line: employees may never like, share or retweet a fundraising appeal, including an event invitation, though off duty they may accept an invitation or mark themselves as “attending.”

The Sept. 30 settlements show how this is enforced. OSC said a VA supervisor who reposted a candidate’s appeal with a “Donate Now” button had made “an unlawful solicitation of political contributions” and took a six-day unpaid suspension. An FBI employee who used Facebook at least four times to share partisan material took five days. The rules for workers generally are in our federal employee do-and-don’t guide.

Can officials use their job titles on social media?

In a profile, yes; in a partisan post, no. OSC says employees may list their titles and employers in profiles even alongside a party affiliation. But they “may not use their official titles or positions when posting messages” aimed at a party or candidate’s success or failure.

Two refinements matter for senior officials. First, a LinkedIn headline travels with every post, so an employee whose headline shows the title cannot use that account for partisan posts. That was the issue in another Sept. 30 settlement: OSC said a State Department employee’s title and agency showed up next to partisan posts seven other times, and the employee accepted a three-day suspension. Second, a personal account can become an official one in practice. OSC lists five signs, such as little personal content, heavy use of official photos and links to an agency page, and says no single factor decides it. An official who runs a nominally personal feed mostly as an agency megaphone takes on the official-account rules.

What are the rules for agency and official accounts?

Government accounts must stay out of partisan politics entirely. OSC’s guidance says official social media accounts “should remain politically neutral,” and its FAQ says employees may not use candidate images, slogans or party symbols as profile pictures on official accounts.

The harder question is what counts as partisan. OSC took it up on Sept. 25, 2026, in its review of how agencies talked about the 2025 shutdown, much of which pinned it on Democrats. It said party references that are incidental to a live dispute, far from an election and neutrally worded are “unlikely to be political activity,” while those that are “gratuitous, made close to an election, and framed as an attack on a party are likely to be political activity.” Any party reference using express election terms such as voting or candidates “is likely to violate the Hatch Act,” OSC wrote. It also weighs audience and reach. One example in the record was a satirical White House “mysafespace” page presented as a profile of congressional Democrats; OSC said it raised concerns about some of that content with the White House Counsel’s Office after the shutdown, and the content was removed. OSC declined to discipline anyone, citing agencies’ reliance on its 2024 advice, and made no final determination on the messages. More on that report is in our shutdown guidance explainer.

How do the Hatch Act social media rules apply to the 2026 cases?

The two pending complaints both involve agency accounts, which means the neutrality rule and OSC’s new election-timing test are the yardsticks, not the personal-account rules. The table lists the main social media matters of the past year.

The FBI video. CREW’s complaint argues that the video’s “explicit identification of Mr. El-Sayed” as a progressive Democrat and Senate nominee invoked the election. The Hill noted the video “does not mention the election outright” and also credits FBI Director Kash Patel with arrests and fentanyl seizures. CREW says the FBI deleted the post after the complaint; the bureau did not explain the removal. On Oct. 15, Democracy Defenders Fund asked three bodies to look at the video: the Justice Department’s inspector general, the Government Accountability Office and OSC. Our FBI video report has the full account.

The Treasury video. The Steady State’s public summary identifies an official Treasury TikTok video posted Oct. 14 and asks OSC to review Treasurer Brandon Beach’s conduct. The excerpt it published does not describe the video’s content, and no response from Treasury or Beach was found. It is an allegation only.

With the Nov. 3 election under a week away, both matters were still open on Oct. 28, and the FBI had not commented on its video to The Hill or the Times.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can federal employees post about candidates on social media?

Yes, off duty and outside the workplace. OSC guidance bars posting, liking or sharing partisan content while on duty or in a federal workplace, even from a private personal account, and bars sharing fundraising requests at any time.

Can a federal employee list a job title on a social media profile?

Yes. OSC says employees may list their title and employer in a profile even if they also list a party. They may not invoke the title in a partisan post, and a LinkedIn headline with the title counts as invoking it.

Do the Hatch Act social media rules apply to agency accounts?

Yes. OSC says official accounts should remain politically neutral. In September 2026 it added that party references close to an election, framed as attacks, are likely to be political activity, and that express election terms are likely to violate the law.

Do Hatch Act social media rules apply to the president?

No. OSC guidance says the president and vice president are not covered by the Hatch Act and are not subject to its social media restrictions. Their staff and other appointees are covered.

Did OSC rule on the FBI video about Abdul El-Sayed?

No decision had been reported as of October 28. CREW filed a complaint the day the video was posted and the FBI deleted the post without comment. Democracy Defenders Fund later wrote to OSC, the GAO and the Justice Department inspector general.

Sources

• Hatch Act Guidance on Social Media — U.S. Office of Special Counsel, revised February 2018
• Hatch Act FAQs — U.S. Office of Special Counsel, accessed October 28, 2026
• OSC Announces Settlements in Five Hatch Act Cases and Files Complaint Against Another Federal Employee — U.S. Office of Special Counsel, September 30, 2026
• Hatch Act Assessment and Advisory: Partisan Agency Communications During the 2025 Lapse in Appropriations — U.S. Office of Special Counsel, September 25, 2026
• FBI post featuring El-Sayed runs afoul of Hatch Act, experts say — The Hill, October 8, 2026
• The Trump administration’s midterms Hatch Act violation rampage — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, October 2026
• Democracy Defenders Fund Calls for Investigation into Taxpayer-Funded FBI Video Attacking Democrats During Early Voting — Democracy Defenders Fund, October 15, 2026
• Hatch Act Complaint: Treasurer of the United States Brandon Beach — The Steady State, October 17, 2026
• Cabinet Officials on the Campaign Trail? Ethics Experts Say Some Are Breaking the Law. — The New York Times, October 28, 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.