SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 05 2011, 10:55am EDT
Contact:
Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
Barrier Between Public Service and Nonprofits Falling
Ethics Rule Restricting Federal Employees from Nonprofit Boards Set for Repeal
WASHINGTON
A fifteen-year old rule generally barring federal employees from serving as officers or directors of nonprofit organizations will soon be rescinded. This change may result in much greater involvement by federal specialists in the nonprofit sector, especially within scientific, legal and other professional societies, according to public comments filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) has decided that the broad prohibition against federal employees serving in their official capacities as officers or directors in nonprofit organizations should be removed from the regulations implementing criminal conflict of interest law. OGE stated that "the potential for a real conflict of interest is too remote or inconsequential to affect the integrity of an employee's service," according to the Federal Register notice announcing the proposed change. The public comment period on the proposal closes today.
Federal employees will still need permission from their agencies to spend official time and resources in nonprofit work. Each federal department will have to decide if service in a scientific or other professional society is "consistent with the needs and interests of the agency," in the words of OGE. Previously, an employee could serve in a nonprofit only with a special waiver, which agencies are reluctant to grant.
"Hopefully, what was the exception will now become the rule," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that some agencies even outlawed serving on the board of homeowners associations. "Civil servants should be able to participate in civil society so long as it does not interfere with their public service."
OGE had asked Congress to amend the conflict statute back in 2006 but that effort went nowhere. Two recent developments gave it new life. In August 2010, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry wrote OGE to urge the change on the basis that the current "restrictions act as a barrier to employees achieving professional stature in their respective fields." Then, in December 2010, the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy issued guidance for the Obama scientific integrity initiative urging agencies to develop rules allowing "full participation in professional or scholarly societies, committees, task forces and other specialized societies, including removing barriers for serving as officers or on governing boards of such societies."
Although the impetus for the change came from scientific societies, this new conflict exemption will apply to all nonprofits in every field. Whether on official or personal time, federal employees still are subject to limitations on their roles in nonprofit fundraising, lobbying and litigation. In addition, disclosure of previously nonpublic information to professional society colleagues could raise thorny issues.
"Professional collaboration with outsiders often deters political manipulation and improves the quality of the final product. Anything that increases the transparency of federal agencies, particularly on scientific and technical matters, is welcome," Ruch added, while conceding that agencies will undoubtedly remain averse to letting their specialists work with outsiders on any controversial subject. "I doubt we will see any federal employees reporting for duty at PEER."
###
Look at the proposed rule change by the Office of Government Ethics
Read the PEER comments
View Office of Personnel Management letter urging the change
See ethical issues for federal employees serving in either official or personal capacities
PEER protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. We work with current and former federal, state, local, and tribal employees.
LATEST NEWS
Human Rights Watch Israel-Palestine Team Quits Over Blocked Report on Right of Return
“I have lost my faith in the integrity of how we do our work and our commitment to principled reporting on the facts and application of the law,” said resigning staffer Omar Shakir.
Feb 03, 2026
Two Human Rights Watch employees—the group's entire Israel-Palestine team—resigned after senior staffers blocked a report calling Israel's denial of Palestinian refugees' right of return to their homeland a crime against humanity.
Jewish Currents' Alex Kane reported Tuesday that HRW Israel-Palestine team lead Omar Shakir and assistant researcher Milena Ansari are stepping down over leadership's decision to nix the report, which was scheduled for release on December 4. Shakir wrote in his resignation email that one senior HRW leader informed him that calling Israel's denial of Palestinian right of return would be seen as a call to “demographically extinguish the Jewishness of the Israeli state.”
“I have lost my faith in the integrity of how we do our work and our commitment to principled reporting on the facts and application of the law,” Shakir—who is also member of Jewish Currents' advisory board—wrote in his resignation letter. “As such, I am no longer able to represent or work for Human Rights Watch.”
In an interview published Tuesday by Drop Site News, Shakir—who was deported from Israel in 2019 over his advocacy of Palestinian rights—said: “I’ve given every bit of myself to the work for a decade. I’ve defended the work in very, very difficult circumstances... The refugees I interviewed deserve to know why their stories aren’t being told."
Ansari said that "whatever justification" HRW leadership "had for pausing the report is not based on the law or facts."
The resignations underscored tensions among HRW staffers over how to navigate a potential political minefield while conducting legal analysis and reporting of Israeli policies and practices in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories.
As Kane reported:
The resignations have roiled one of the most prominent human rights groups in the world just as HRW’s new executive director, Philippe Bolopion, begins his tenure. In a statement, HRW said that the report “raised complex and consequential issues. In our review process, we concluded that aspects of the research and the factual basis for our legal conclusions needed to be strengthened to meet Human Rights Watch’s high standards.” They said that “the publication of the report was paused pending further analysis and research,” and that the process was “ongoing.”
Kenneth Roth, a longtime former HRW executive director, defended the group's decision to block the report, asserting on social media that Bolopion "was right to suspend a report using a novel and unsupported legal theory to contend that denying the right to return to a locale is a crime against humanity."
However, Shakir countered that HRW "found in 2023 denial of a return to amount to a crime against humanity in Chagos."
"This is based on [International Criminal Court] precedent," he added. "Other reports echoed the analysis. Are you calling on HRW to retract a report for its first time ever, or it just different rules for Palestine?"
Polis Project founder Suchitra Vijayan said on X Tuesday that "the decision by Human Rights Watch’s leadership to pull a report on the right of return for Palestinian refugees, after it had cleared internal review, legal sign-off, and publication preparation, demands public reckoning."
"This was not a draft in dispute and the explanation offered so far evades the central issue of 'institutional independence' in the face of political pressure," added Vijayan, who is also a professor at Columbia and New York universities. "Why was the report stopped, and what does this decision signals for the future of its work and credibility on Palestine?"
Offering "solidarity to Omar and Milena" on social media, Medical Aid for Palestinians director of advocacy and campaigns Rohan Talbot said that "Palestinian rights are yet again exceptionalized, their suffering trivialized, and their pursuit of justice forestalled by people who care more about reputation and expediency than law and justice."
Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW's former Middle East and North Africa director and currently executive director at Democracy for the Arab World Now, told Drop Site News on Tuesday that “We have once again run into Human Rights Watch’s systemic ‘Israel Exception,’ with work critical of Israel subjected to exceptional review and arbitrary processes that no other country work faces."
The modern state of Israel was established in 1948 largely through a more than decadelong campaign of terrorism against both the British occupiers of Palestine and Palestinian Arabs and the ethnic cleansing of the latter. More than 750,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homeland, sometimes via massacres or the threat thereof, in what Arabs call the Nakba, or catastrophe.
More than 400 Palestinian villages were destroyed or abandoned, and their denizens—some of whom still hold the keys to their stolen homes—have yet to return. Today, they and their descendants number more than 7 million, all of whom have been denied the right of return affirmed in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194.
Many Palestinians and experts around the world argue that the Nakba never ended—a position that has gained attention over the past 28 months, as Israel has faced mounting allegations of genocide for a war that's left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing in the coastal strip and around 2 million people forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
Bolopion told Kane Tuesday that the controversy over the blocked report is “a genuine and good-faith disagreement among colleagues on complex legal and advocacy questions."
“HRW remains committed to the right of return for all Palestinians, as has been our policy for many years," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘This Rogue Agency Should Not Receive a Single Penny,’ Progressives Say of ICE as Trump Signs Funding Bill
As some Democrats suggest compromising in order to reform the agency, Rep. Rashida Tlaib said that “ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change.”
Feb 03, 2026
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a bill to end a brief government shutdown after the US House of Representatives narrowly passed the $1.2 trillion funding package.
While the bill keeps most of the federal government funded until the end of September, lawmakers sidestepped the question of funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which Democrats have vowed to block absent reforms to rein in its lawless behavior after the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and a rash of other attacks on civil rights.
The bill, which passed on Tuesday by a vote of 217-214, extends funding for ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for just two weeks, setting up a battle in the coming weeks on which the party remains split.
While most Democrats voted against Tuesday's measure, 21 joined the bulk of Republicans to drag it just over the line, despite calls from progressive activists and groups, such as MoveOn, which Axios said peppered lawmakers with letters urging them to use every bit of "leverage" they can to force drastic changes at the agency.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who voted for the bill, acknowledged that it was "a leverage tool that people are giving up," but said funding for the rest of the government took precedence.
The real fight is expected to take place over the next 10 days, with DHS funding set to run out on February 14.
ICE will be funded regardless of whether a new round of DHS funding passes, since Republicans already passed $170 billion in DHS funding in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Democrats in both the House and Senate have laid out lists of reforms they say Republicans must acquiesce to if they want any additional funding for ICE, including requirements that agents nationwide wear body cameras, get judicial warrants for arrests, and adhere to a code of conduct similar to those for state and local law enforcement.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair emerita of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who voted against Tuesday's bill reiterated that in order to pass longterm DHS funding, "there must be due process, a requirement for judicial warrants and bond hearings; every agent must not only have a bodycam but also be required to use it, take off their masks, and, in cases of misconduct, undergo immediate, independent investigations."
Some critics have pointed out that ICE agents already routinely violate court orders and constitutional requirements, raising questions about whether new laws would even be enforceable.
A memo issued last week, telling agents they do not need to obtain judicial warrants to enter homes, has been described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite this, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Tuesday that Republicans will not even consider negotiating the warrant requirement, calling it "unworkable."
"We cannot trust this DHS, which has already received an unprecedented funding spike for ICE, to operate within the bounds of our Constitution or our laws," Jayapal said. "And for that reason, we cannot continue to fund them without significant and enforceable guardrails."
According to recent polls, the vast majority of Democratic voters want to go beyond reforms and push to abolish ICE outright. In the wake of ICE's reign of terror in Minneapolis, it's a position that nearly half the country now holds, with more people saying they want the agency to be done away with than saying they want it preserved.
"The American people are begging us to stop sending their tax dollars to execute people in the streets, abduct 5-year-olds, and separate families," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who gathered with other progressive lawmakers in the cold outside DHS headquarters on Tuesday. "ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change... No one should vote to send another cent to DHS."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who comes from the Minnesota Somali community targeted by Trump's operation there, agreed: "This rogue agency should not receive a single penny. It should be abolished and prosecuted."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ Plotting to Parachute In Prosecutors Across US to Bring Cases Against Anti-ICE Protesters
"Feel like this isn't gonna work out well," one legal expert said in response to the leaked DOJ plan.
Feb 03, 2026
The US Department of Justice is reportedly setting up a new program that would create a team of prosecutors who can parachute into different areas throughout the country to bring charges against protesters who have allegedly assaulted or obstructed law enforcement officers.
As reported by Bloomberg on Tuesday, a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo mandates that US attorney's offices designate some of their staff members to serve on "emergency jump teams" that can surge into areas on short notice to prosecute cases.
"A senior official instructed leaders of the nation's 93 US attorney’s offices... that they have until February 6 to designate one or two assistant US attorneys," reported Bloomberg, "who’d be available for short-term surges in unspecified areas needing 'urgent assistance due to emergent or critical situations.'"
The effort to create "jump teams" of lawyers comes as the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota has been hit with a wave of resignations in the wake of the federal government's surge of federal immigration enforcement agents into the state.
According to a Monday report from the Minnesota Star Tribune, 14 lawyers at the Minnesota US Attorney's Office have either already resigned or announced their intention to resign in just the last month, an unprecedented number of departures in such a short period of time.
Bloomberg writes that the "jump team" plan "signals the Trump administration’s attempt to offset career prosecutor attrition... with a nationwide pool of reinforcements on standby."
The plan was potentially telegraphed by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Saturday, when he put out a call on social media for more attorneys to come work for the Trump administration.
"If you want to combat fraud, crime and illegal immigration, reach out," Miller wrote. "Patriots needed."
Attorney Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, speculated on Sunday that Miller's call reflected "real internal problems" at the DOJ, and he predicted that one solution the administration could try would be to create a mobile legal strike force much like the one outlined in the leaked DOJ memo.
However, White argued that this approach would be far from a magic bullet to solve the administration's staffing woes.
"The impediments will be these: They will get dregs who will do a bad job," White wrote. "Federal prosecution is not rocket science but federal judges do have notably higher standards than state judges and if you MAGA your way around federal court you will get your ass handed to you."
Jonathan Booth, a law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, also predicted that the administration's strike force plan would run into some major speed bumps.
"Imagine, you're a federal prosecutor in San Diego," he wrote in a social media post. "It's sunny, warm, you have a whole set of important cases. Then suddenly 'we need you to go to Buffalo and prosecute extremely weak misdemeanor cases.' Feel like this isn't gonna work out well."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular