Photo of Robert BurtonPhoto of Lorraine M. CamposPhoto of Peter J. EyrePhoto of David J. Ginsberg

On Saturday, January 28, President Trump issued an Executive Order setting forth the ethics regulations governing current and future executive agency appointments, which is both more restrictive and less restrictive than the 2009 Obama Executive Order addressing the same issue.  Specifically, and with respect to the former, President Trump’s order bans all executive agency appointees from engaging in “lobbying activities” with respect to the particular agency in which the appointee served for a period of five years after leaving the Administration, and further prohibits such appointees from lobbying on behalf of a foreign government or political party during the remainder of their lifetimes (if such activities would require registration “under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938”).  See §§ 1.1, 1.4.  These two prohibitions were absent from the Obama-era counterpart and mirror two of Trump’s promises outlined in his Contract with the American Voter.

At the same time, and perhaps more importantly, the Trump Executive Order, unlike the Obama Executive Order, does not impose a two-year ban on appointees leaving the Government who are “covered by the post-employment restrictions set forth in” 18 U.S.C. § 207(c), but instead, defaults to the statutorily-provided for prohibitions.  See id. § 1.2.

In a further departure from the Obama Executive Order, Trump’s order also does not prevent current registered lobbyists from seeking employment with an executive agency that they lobbied during the two years preceding the appointment date; thus allowing appointments and hiring of current lobbyists.  However, such appointees continue to be restricted for two years after their appointment from participating in: (1) “any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to [the lobbyist’s] former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts;” (2) “any particular matter” on which s/he lobbied within the two years prior to the appointment date; and (3) “the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls.”  See id. §§ 1.6-1.7.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Robert Burton Robert Burton

Robert A. Burton is a partner with Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He is a nationally-recognized federal procurement attorney, an expert witness on government contracts issues in federal court and arbitration proceedings, and a leader who…

Robert A. Burton is a partner with Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He is a nationally-recognized federal procurement attorney, an expert witness on government contracts issues in federal court and arbitration proceedings, and a leader who assists government contractors with navigating the complex and rule-driven procurement process. He represents a wide range of companies that conduct business with the federal government, from large defense contractors and systems integrators to small businesses.

Photo of Lorraine M. Campos Lorraine M. Campos

Lorraine M. Campos is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group and focuses her practice on assisting clients with a variety of issues related to government contracts, government ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying laws. Lorraine…

Lorraine M. Campos is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group and focuses her practice on assisting clients with a variety of issues related to government contracts, government ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying laws. Lorraine regularly counsels clients on all aspects of the General Services Administration (GSA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) programs. She also routinely advises clients on the terms and conditions of these agreements, including the Price Reduction Clause, small business subcontracting requirements, and country of origin restrictions mandated under U.S. trade agreements, such as the Trade Agreements Act and the Buy American Act. Additionally, Lorraine advises life sciences companies, in particular, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, on federal procurement and federal pricing statutes, including the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992.

Lorraine has been ranked by Chambers USA since 2013, and she was recognized by Profiles in Diversity Journal as one of their “Women Worth Watching” for 2015. Additionally, Lorraine is active in the American Bar Association’s Section of Public Contract Law and serves as co-chair of the Health Care Contracting Committee.

Photo of Peter J. Eyre Peter J. Eyre

Peter J. Eyre is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group. He is also a member of the firm’s Management Board. Peter was named to BTI Consulting Group’s list of “Client Service All-Stars” in 2016, 2017, and 2019 and…

Peter J. Eyre is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group. He is also a member of the firm’s Management Board. Peter was named to BTI Consulting Group’s list of “Client Service All-Stars” in 2016, 2017, and 2019 and has been named an Acritas Star, Acritas Stars Independently Rated Lawyers (2016, 2017, 2019). He is nationally ranked by Chambers USA in Government Contracts since 2014, and by Super Lawyers since 2017.

Photo of David J. Ginsberg David J. Ginsberg

David Ginsberg is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group and resident in the firm’s Los Angeles office. David leads the firm’s State and Local Practice and in this role, assists clients with: (1) reviewing…

David Ginsberg is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group and resident in the firm’s Los Angeles office. David leads the firm’s State and Local Practice and in this role, assists clients with: (1) reviewing state and local opportunities (e.g., RFPs, RFIs, and RFQs); (2) participating in face-to-face (or virtual) negotiations with his government counterparts relating to contractual terms and conditions; (3) state and local level bid protests that arise in connection with a procurement; and (4) assessing ongoing contract performance issues that arise in information technology, infrastructure, and health care contracts. Should any disputes result from contract performance, David leverages this experience in order to lead clients successfully through the disputes process.