BY DAVID B. RIVKIN, JR. AND LEE A. CASEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS — 08/29/20 05:00 PM EDT 928THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL6
- ICE reports over 230 active COVID-19 infections at Arizona facilitySTATE WATCH — 8M 30S AGO
- University of Alabama reports over 1,000 students tested positive for coronavirusBLOG BRIEFING ROOM — 14M 43S AGO
- Outside group pulls ad about Alex Morse after criticism it was homophobicCAMPAIGN — 28M 30S AGO
- Northwestern University freshmen, sophomores will not return to campusSTATE WATCH — 38M 44S AGO
- College Republicans at Arizona State raise money for alleged Kenosha shooter: ‘He does not deserve to have his entire life destroyed’STATE WATCH — 49M 26S AGO
- Republicans aim socialism accusation at Florida audienceCAMPAIGN — 1H 10M AGO
- Number of coronavirus cases linked to Maine wedding rises to 123STATE WATCH — 1H 25M AGO
- Democrats seek balance in backing protests, condemning violenceCAMPAIGN — 1H 44M AGO
- Fact-shaming Michelle Obama’s DNC speech
- [Photos] She Never Got Married, and Now You…Sponsored | History Chronicle
- No democracy with a junta
- Biden-Harris is the most regressive possible…
© Getty Images
The talking heads and pundits attacking President Trump for giving his Republican National Convention acceptance speech from the White House lawn need to actually read the law. The Hatch Act is a precisely written statute — as is appropriate for a law that limits the indisputable First Amendment rights of federal workers — and it supports the president.
First and foremost, the Hatch Act explicitly exempts the president and vice president from its strictures. It defines “employee,” to which the Hatch Act’s restrictions apply, as someone “other than the President or Vice President.” This is constitutionally required because the president is a co-equal branch of the federal government and Congress can no more limit or restrain his political activities than he could limit theirs.
As a result, President Trump was entirely within his legal rights to give his acceptance speech from the South Lawn of the White House. And any members of the White House staff who may have assisted and supported the president on Thursday night also were in compliance with the Hatch Act.https://1fbbf213272dee38895edf25d95afc76.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
Although the Hatch Act prohibits a wide swath of federal workers — including many of the individuals who work in the White House — from engaging in political activities while on duty or “in any room or building occupied,” the White House lawn is not such a room or building. Had Congress intended to extend Hatch Act restrictions to entire government installations or compounds, it could and would have said so.
In addition, there is a further exemption from the relevant Hatch Act restrictions for White House staff members whose work and responsibilities continue beyond normal working hours and while on travel — which includes many if not most of them. These individuals are permitted to engage in political activities while on duty and in a federal room or building, as long as “the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.” The president has stated that the Republican National Committee would be picking up the tab for his White House event (and the fireworks afterwards).
Similarly, the attacks on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for delivering a convention speech from Jerusalem, endorsing President Trump’s reelection, are similarly misplaced based on these same provisions. In addition to exempting senior White House staff from Hatch Act restrictions on political activities while on duty or in a federal building, Section 7324(b) of the Hatch Act also exempts federal officials who are confirmed by the Senate and who “determine policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.” This language includes, at a minimum, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other members of the president’s cabinet.
Such officials cannot, of course, use their “official authority or influence” to affect an election’s result, but the State Department has made clear that Secretary Pompeo spoke in his pri