Executive Order 13770

Executive Order 13770
Name	Executive Order 13770
Type	Executive order
Signed	January 28, 2017
Signed by	Donald J. Trump
Subject	Ethics pledge for appointees

Contents

Executive Order 13770 Executive Order 13770 instituted an ethics pledge for certain Presidential appointees and sought to regulate post-employment lobbying and conflicts of interest for personnel in the Trump Administration. The order intersected with debates involving the United States Constitution, Emoluments Clause, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Office of Government Ethics, U.S. Department of Justice, and comparable instruments from prior administrations such as orders by Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.

Background

The order emerged amid transitions involving the 2016 United States presidential election, the Trump transition team, and nominees facing scrutiny from committees such as the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Finance Committee, and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It followed controversies connecting the incoming administration to actors like Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and entities including the Trump Organization, The Trump Organization, and foreign counterparts such as firms tied to Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Congressional actors including Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi debated whether the order aligned with standards set by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and precedents during the tenures of Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Harry S. Truman.

The executive order required appointees to sign an ethics pledge modeled on elements from earlier directives like those by Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, and invoked oversight by the Office of Government Ethics and Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Key elements included a ban on accepting gratuities from foreign governments involving nations such as Russia, United Kingdom, China, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia; a two-year prohibition on lobbying contacts with former agencies resembling restrictions used in Presidential Transition Act contexts; recusal obligations for matters touching former employers like Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America; and a lifetime bar on appearing before agencies on behalf of foreign principals paralleling concerns raised under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and Emoluments Clause litigation brought by entities like CREW and plaintiffs represented by lawyers from firms associated with Preet Bharara and Seth Waxman.

The text specified disclosure duties similar to filings under the Public Financial Disclosure system and referenced standards enforced by offices such as the Office of Special Counsel, Inspector General, and Government Accountability Office when agencies like the Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Treasury manage compliance. It also echoed administrative ethics measures taken during crises like the Iran–Contra affair and policy shifts after the Watergate scandal.

Implementation relied on career ethics officials across agencies including the General Services Administration, Small Business Administration, Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Energy. The order affected nominees such as Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt, and Wilbur Ross, prompting divestment moves analogous to actions by Michael Flynn and reporting conflicts reminiscent of those involving Robert Gates and John Kerry. Impact assessments by think tanks like the Brookings Institution, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Center for American Progress, and Bipartisan Policy Center debated whether the pledge altered interactions with lobbyists from firms such as K Street, consulting groups like McKinsey & Company, and law firms including Covington & Burling and Sullivan & Cromwell.

The order shaped enforcement practice in agencies led by secretaries confirmed in United States Senate confirmation hearings and engaged watchdogs like ProPublica, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and broadcasters such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC that tracked compliance and departures. International reactions involved diplomatic posts in London, Beijing, Riyadh, Brussels, and Moscow.

Legal disputes invoked precedents from cases such as Marbury v. Madison, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and litigation around the Emoluments Clause brought by groups like CREW and plaintiffs represented by firms associated with Seth Waxman and Neil Katyal. Questions arose about separation-of-powers doctrines and whether an executive order could supersede statutory disclosure regimes enacted under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and interpreted by courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States. Challenges referenced prior rulings on executive authority during administrations of Abraham Lincoln (wartime precedents), Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson concerning scope of presidential directives.

Controversies included alleged circumvention via waivers, the scope of recusal enforcement by the Office of Government Ethics, and tensions with lobbying restrictions under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Litigation tactics paralleled strategies used in high-profile suits like those involving Sally Yates and Don McGahn.

Commentary ranged from praise in editorials by outlets like Wall Street Journal and conservative scholars at Heritage Foundation to skepticism from critics at Center for American Progress and legal scholars at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, and University of Chicago Law School. Congressional responses involved statements by members such as Adam Schiff, Jim Jordan, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders asserting differing interpretations. Public interest organizations including Common Cause, Sunlight Foundation, Public Citizen, and Campaign Legal Center weighed in on enforcement realism, while international law experts from Chatham House and Council on Foreign Relations discussed diplomatic implications. Editorial cartoons and commentary in publications like The Economist, New Yorker, and TIME (magazine) reflected the partisan and institutional debates that accompanied the order's issuance.

Category:United States executive orders