In March, after a Justice Department employee wrote an op-ed criticizing the Biden administration over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, her supervisors accused her of violating federal law. Last week, the Office of Special Counsel squarely rejected that allegation, but the investigation sent a chilling message to other federal employees organizing around Israel and Gaza.
Emma West Rasmus, a longtime Justice Department employee, wrote an op-ed in early March for The Hill about a recent visit to Palestine with her church. “I decided in November, and am surer than ever in March: Unless the Democratic Party and its leaders call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and a lasting end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, I will not vote for Biden or any Democrat,” she wrote.
The article, which published on a Friday, initially included a note stating West Rasmus “works at the Department of Justice and is a member of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church.”
The following Monday, West Rasmus was accused by senior Justice Department attorneys and ethics officials of violating the Hatch Act, according to records reviewed by The Intercept. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from using their “official authority” to engage in certain political activity, especially advocating for or against a particular candidate or political party.
“When you start your federal government service,” West Rasmus told The Intercept, “on your very first day you learn about the Hatch Act.”
In November, the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, put out guidance explaining that federal employees could express their views on Israel and Gaza without running afoul of the law. OSC also clarified that the Hatch Act only limits partisan political speech “while on duty or in the federal workplace.”
In recent months, agency employees have organized letters, rallies, and protest art urging the Biden administration to change course on Gaza. Organizers have been careful to follow the law, but they were still “worried about the threat of being accused of Hatch Act violations,” said a State Department employee who spoke with The Intercept on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. “Even though we know senior [political appointees] have rarely been held accountable, we know it has been wielded or threatened against junior staff.”
West Rasmus said she is the only federal employee she is aware of who has been formally accused under the Hatch Act over Gaza dissent actions.
The Justice Department suggested West Rasmus violated the Hatch Act by listing her federal employment in the article. Two DOJ attorneys recommended that she ask The Hill to remove these references, which West Rasmus did. The current version of the article does not indicate she is a federal employee at all.
The Justice Department also suggested that West Rasmus violated the Hatch Act by sharing the article on LinkedIn, and the DOJ attorneys recommended that she remove her own social media posts and even ask others to stop sharing it.
They suggested that by taking these “mitigating steps,” OSC might go easy on her.
Five months later, however, OSC determined there was no Hatch Act violation in the first place.
“Although you engaged in political activity while referencing that you work for the federal government in the op-ed, and specifically the Department of Justice in the byline, these references do not constitute a use of official authority rising to the level of a Hatch Act violation,” reads an August 8 determination letter from OSC.
West Rasmus, who still works for the Justice Department, says this decision lifted a huge weight off her shoulders, but that the investigation itself “absolutely had a chilling effect” on her and other federal employees trying to galvanize internal dissent on Gaza policy.
“I always felt like putting the op-ed out there in the way that I did was worth the risk,” she said. “That speaks to how urgently I and other federal employees feel about the need to take actions that we wouldn’t otherwise take.”
The Justice Department did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment.