Hatch Act Reform: What Congress Has Proposed and Why It Is Stalled

As complaints against senior Trump officials pile up in the final week of the 2026 midterm campaign, watchdog groups are arguing that the Hatch Act itself is too weak to matter. In an Oct. 28 report in The New York Times, Abigail Bellows of Common Cause said: “What we’re seeing is a glaring need for Hatch Act reform.” Bills that would deliver it already exist in Congress, but the govinfo record shows them only as introduced, and the same Times report called a bipartisan push unlikely with President Trump in office.

Where it stands: The newest proposal, the Hatch Act Accountability Act, is Title XXVI of H.R. 8831, introduced May 14, 2026, by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) with Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and other Democrats. A narrower transparency bill, H.R. 1688, dates to February 2025. The govinfo copies of both are introduced texts. The administration, for its part, rejects the premise that its officials are breaking the law; in the Times’ account, the White House and agencies call the complaints partisan and defend the officials’ conduct as lawful.

What Hatch Act reform is Congress considering?

Two Democratic bills carry the main ideas. Both target the same gap: the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the independent agency that enforces the Hatch Act, can prosecute ordinary federal workers but can only send a report to the president about his Senate-confirmed appointees.

H.R. 8831, the Protecting Our Democracy Act. Its Hatch Act title would give OSC a second route. After presenting a complaint to the president, OSC could, 90 days later, take a political appointee before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the quasi-judicial body that hears federal employee cases. The bill bars OSC from filing with the board “until on or after the date that is 90 days after” the complaint went to the president, and only if no discipline had already been imposed. The president would also have to tell OSC in writing whether he imposed the recommended discipline. The board could then impose “a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000.” The bill would add a criminal offense, too: anyone who “knowingly violates section 7323 or 7324 shall be fined $50,000” or imprisoned for up to a year. Other sections would apply some limits to the president and vice president on federal property and order a Government Accountability Office review of reimbursable political events.

H.R. 1688, the Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act. Introduced by Garcia on Feb. 27, 2025, and referred to the House Oversight Committee, it would require the special counsel to report to the leaders of the oversight committees every 180 days. Garcia’s office said it accompanies a Senate bill from Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.). The Project On Government Oversight (POGO), which backs it, says the point is to make OSC explain to Congress when it declines to investigate political appointees.

How would the bills change the rules for cabinet officials?

The biggest change would be who has the final word. Today, section 1215(b) of Title 5 sends OSC’s case against a Senate-confirmed official to the White House, where it is “presented to the President for appropriate action” rather than to the board. The table compares current law with the reform bill as introduced.

The money figures matter because the existing cap is small. The statute limits a civil penalty to $1,000. The MSPB adjusted that figure for inflation in a rule published July 22, 2025, and the current regulation sets the ceiling at $1,365. The penalty section was last amended by Congress in December 2017, according to the U.S. Code’s statutory notes. For a full rundown of current penalties, see our guide to Hatch Act penalties and who enforces them.

Where did these Hatch Act reform ideas come from?

Most of them were drafted after earlier fights over senior officials, and both parties’ appointees have been the subject of OSC findings over the years.

In June 2019, after OSC recommended that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway be removed from office, Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Reps. Jackie Speier, Jamie Raskin and Mark DeSaulnier introduced the Presidential Appointee Accountability Act. Raskin’s office said it would remove “the immunity that shields presidential appointees from accountability under the Hatch Act” and let the MSPB impose a fine of up to $10,000 per violation. Our Conway explainer covers that case.

In November 2021, OSC itself asked for change. Its report finding at least 13 senior Trump officials in violation in the run-up to the 2020 election suggested, according to the Associated Press, a statutory amendment letting OSC fine Senate-confirmed appointees and commissioned officers. That same month, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) urged Congress to pass the Protect Our Democracy Act, saying it would let OSC investigate senior appointees and seek fines up to $50,000. None of those proposals changed the penalty statute.

What do watchdog groups and the administration say now?

Watchdogs say the gap between senior and junior employees has widened; the administration says the complaints are partisan. Each side’s position is its own.

POGO argues that “there is often a double standard in enforcement” that punishes rank-and-file employees while senior officials escape. It also says OSC, under acting leadership, “rolled back key Hatch Act reforms” by rescinding Biden-era advisory opinions in April 2025. The watchdog CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) says that rescission “relinquished a significant tool for holding some top federal officials accountable.” In August 2026, CREW told OSC it had six open investigations into senior officials, five pending for more than 10 months, according to Government Executive; that count is CREW’s, and OSC said it does not comment on open cases. Common Cause wants something broader: a single independent watchdog with jurisdiction over the whole executive branch.

The administration’s answer, as summarized by the Times, is that the accusations are partisan attacks aimed at Republicans and that its officials follow the law. OSC did not comment for the Times story.

Why does reform look stalled before 2027?

Any of these changes requires an act of Congress signed by the president, and that is the obstacle. The Times wrote that it is “unlikely that a bipartisan coalition would rally around such an effort while Mr. Trump occupies the White House.” NPR made a related point in July: “Even if Democrats retake both chambers of Congress, Trump would retain veto power over any bills sent to his desk.”

Democrats including Raskin are campaigning on anti-corruption reform anyway, NPR reported. In the meantime, enforcement depends on OSC as it is, which is the subject of our explainer on how the Office of Special Counsel enforces the Hatch Act. The most recent bill text on file, H.R. 8831, is dated May 14, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a Hatch Act reform bill in Congress?

Yes. The main 2026 proposal is the Hatch Act Accountability Act, Title XXVI of H.R. 8831, introduced by Rep. Jamie Raskin on May 14, 2026. A narrower 2025 bill, H.R. 1688 from Rep. Robert Garcia, would require regular OSC reports to Congress. Both appear on govinfo as introduced texts.

Would Hatch Act reform let anyone fine a cabinet secretary?

Under H.R. 8831 as introduced, yes. After the president had a complaint for 90 days, the Office of Special Counsel could take a political appointee to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which could assess a civil penalty of up to $50,000.

Would the Hatch Act apply to the president under the reform bill?

Partly. H.R. 8831 includes a section titled applying the Hatch Act to the president and vice president while on federal property. Today the law excludes both offices from coverage.

Why is Hatch Act reform considered unlikely right now?

Any change needs Congress, and the president can veto it. The New York Times reported on October 28 that a bipartisan coalition behind such a bill is unlikely while Donald Trump is in the White House, and NPR noted in July that he would keep his veto even if Democrats won both chambers.

What is the current maximum Hatch Act fine?

The statute says a civil penalty may not exceed $1,000. After an inflation adjustment by the Merit Systems Protection Board in July 2025, the regulatory cap is $1,365.

Sources

• H.R. 8831 (Introduced), Protecting Our Democracy Act — U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), May 14, 2026
• H.R. 1688 (Introduced), Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act — U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), February 27, 2025
• Congressman Robert Garcia Reintroduces Hatch Act Enforcement Bill — Office of Rep. Robert Garcia, February 27, 2025
• Blumenthal, Speier, Raskin & DeSaulnier Introduce Legislation to Rein in Illegal Political Activity by Presidential Appointees — Office of Rep. Jamie Raskin, June 2019
• Probe finds Trump officials repeatedly violated Hatch Act — Associated Press (via PBS NewsHour), November 9, 2021
• Hatch Act Reform Cannot Wait — Campaign Legal Center, November 18, 2021
• 5 U.S.C. Chapter 73, Subchapter III: Political Activities — U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), 2023 edition
• 5 CFR 1201.126: Final decisions — eCFR (Office of the Federal Register), current as of October 27, 2026
• 5 U.S. Code § 1215 – Disciplinary action — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, accessed October 28, 2026
• Fact Sheet: Why and How the Hatch Act Must Be Strengthened — Project On Government Oversight, 2025
• Under temporary leadership, OSC reverses progress on Hatch Act — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 2025
• Common Cause Exposes Systemic Failures of Federal Ethics Oversight — Common Cause, 2025
• ‘Glaring violations’ of the Hatch Act by senior Trump officials have gone unpunished for months, good government group alleges — Government Executive, August 21, 2026
• Trump shattered ethics norms. Will voters trust Democrats to fix them? — NPR (via Hawai’i Public Radio), July 27, 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.