Federal agency: Trump official broke the law by attacking a Congress member on Twitter

A senior presidential aide violated federal law when he sent out a tweet calling for the defeat of a Republican member of Congress in a primary election. At least that’s the view of the US Office of Special Counsel, a watchdog agency within the US government that enforces the federal government’s civil service laws.

As White House Director of Social Media, Dan Scavino helps to manage the Trump administration’s social media presence. In April, he tweeted out an attack on Rep. Justin Amash, a libertarian-leaning Republican from Michigan who has frequently criticized Donald Trump:

In a complaint to the OSC, the public interest group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) argued that this was a violation of the Hatch Act, a law that’s intended to prevent public officials from engaging in partisan politics.

Scavino made the tweet from his personal Twitter account, but CREW argued that didn’t matter: He listed his White House job in his Twitter bio, and his profile picture showed him standing in the Oval Office. That, CREW argued, made the tweet an official act as a White House official — a violation of federal law.

And now we know the federal official charged with enforcing the Hatch Act agrees. Ana Galindo-Marrone, chief of the OSC’s Hatch Act Unit, sent CREW a letter endorsing this conclusion.

“OSC has concluded that this activity violated the Hatch Act,” she wrote. “Accordingly, we issued Mr. Scavino a warning letter” and provided Scavino with training on the law. She warned that he could face stiffer disciplinary action if he violates the Hatch Act again. Potential penalties could include loss of his job and up to $1,000 in fines.

This isn’t the first time the White House has run afoul of federal ethics guidelines. In February, White House spokesperson Kellyanne Conway was reprimanded by the Office of Government Ethics for promoting products endorsed by President Trump’s daughter, Ivanka.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via