5 C.F.R. § 2635.702

Use of public office for private gain

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

An employee may not use their public office for their own private gain; for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise (except as otherwise permitted by this part or other applicable law or regulation); or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

(a) Inducement or coercion of benefits. Employees may not use or permit the use of their Government position or title, or any authority associated with their public office, in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to the employee or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.

Example 1 to paragraph (a): Offering to pursue a relative's consumer complaint over a household appliance, an employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission called the general counsel of the manufacturer and, in the course of discussing the problem, stated that they worked at the SEC and were responsible for reviewing the company's filings. The employee violated the prohibition against use of public office for private gain by invoking their official authority in an attempt to influence action to benefit the relative.

Example 2 to paragraph (a): An employee of the Department of Commerce was asked by a friend to determine why another office within the Department of Commerce had not yet granted an export license to the friend's firm. At a department-level staff meeting, the employee raised as a matter for official inquiry the delay in approval of the particular license and asked that the particular license be expedited. The official used their public office in an attempt to benefit the friend and, in acting as the friend's agent for the purpose of pursuing the export license with the Department of Commerce, may also have violated 18 U.S.C. 205.

(b) Appearance of governmental sanction. Except as otherwise provided in this part, employees may not use or permit the use of their Government position or title, or any authority associated with their public office, in a manner that could reasonably be construed to imply that their agency or the Government sanctions or endorses their personal activities or those of another. When teaching, speaking, or writing in a personal capacity, employees may refer to their official title or position only as permitted by § 2635.807(b). When providing a verbal or written recommendation, employees may only use their official title in response to a request for a recommendation or character reference based upon personal knowledge of the ability or character of an individual with whom they have dealt in the course of Federal employment or whom they are recommending for Federal employment.

Example 1 to paragraph (b): An employee of the Department of the Treasury who is asked to provide a letter of recommendation for a former subordinate or for an individual who worked for their team under a Government contract may provide the recommendation using official stationery and may sign the letter using their official title. If, however, the request is for the recommendation of a personal friend with whom they have not dealt in the Government, the employee should not use official stationery or sign the letter of recommendation using their official title, unless the recommendation is for Federal employment. In writing the letter of recommendation for the personal friend, it may be appropriate for the employee to make a reference to their official position in the body of the letter.

Example 2 to paragraph (b): An employee of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a personal social media account. Under “occupation,” the employee writes “Analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency.” On the same social media account, the EPA employee occasionally discusses topics related to the environment, such as recycling, biking to work, and organic gardening. Even though the employee is discussing matters related to the EPA's mission and lists their position in the area designated for occupation, these facts alone would not reasonably be construed as implying governmental sanction or endorsement. The same employee may not, for example, redesign the social media account so that it prominently features the official EPA seal and make statements that either assert or imply that their opinions on environmental topics are sanctioned or endorsed by the Government.

(c) Endorsements. Employees may not use or permit the use of their Government position or title or any authority associated with their public office to endorse any product, service, or enterprise except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services, or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission.

Example 1 to paragraph (c): A Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may not appear in a television commercial and endorse an electrical appliance produced by a former employer, stating that it has been found by the CPSC to be safe for residential use.

Example 2 to paragraph (c): A Foreign Commercial Service officer from the Department of Commerce is asked by a United States telecommunications company to meet with representatives of the government of Spain, which is in the process of procuring telecommunications services and equipment. The company is bidding against five European companies, and the statutory mission of the Department of Commerce includes assisting the export activities of U.S. companies. As part of official duty activities, the Foreign Commercial Service officer may meet with Spanish officials and explain the advantages of procurement from the United States company.

Example 3 to paragraph (c): The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may sign a letter to an oil company indicating that its refining operations are in compliance with Federal air quality standards even though the Administrator knows that the company has routinely displayed letters of this type in television commercials portraying it as a “trustee of the environment for future generations.”

Example 4 to paragraph (c): An Assistant Attorney General may not use their official title or refer to their Government position in a book jacket endorsement of a novel about organized crime written by an author whose work they admire. Nor may they do so in a book review published in a newspaper.

(d) Performance of official duties affecting a private interest. To ensure that the performance of their official duties does not give rise to an appearance of use of public office for private gain or of giving preferential treatment, employees whose duties would affect the financial interests of a friend, relative, or person with whom they are affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity must comply with any applicable requirements of § 2635.502.

(e) Use of terms of address and ranks. Nothing in this section prohibits an employee who is ordinarily addressed using a general term of address, such as “The Honorable” or “Judge,” or a rank, such as a military or ambassadorial rank, from using that term of address or rank in connection with a personal activity.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Defenders of Wildlife v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004).
Defenders of Wildlife v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004). “In general, federal law prohibits government officers or employees from using a public office for personal gain, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 , or substantially participating in an official capacity through decision, approval, or otherwise, in matters in which they have a personal…”
Bader v. United States, 97 F.4th 904 (Fed. Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 (a); see also 5 C.F.R.”
Gregory C. SassÉ v. United States Dep't of Labor United States Dep't of Just., 409 F.3d 773 (6th Cir. 2005). “106 (c), and using a public office for an employee’s own private gain in violation of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 . *778 Early in the year 2000, a staffer from Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s office contacted Sassé and requested that he assist the Congressman in evaluating environmental…”
Pinpoint Consum. Targeting Servs., Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 74 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 (c) ("An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise .”
Nikki A. Gardner v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2016 MSPB 36 (MSPB 2016). · cites it 2× “¶4 In charge 2, the agency alleged that the appellant violated Office of Government of Ethics regulation 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 , when she used her public office for her own gain by sending the agency letter referred to in charge 1 from her Government email address to her personal…”
Nikki A. Gardner v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2016 MSPB 36 (MSPB 2016). · cites it 2× “¶4 In charge 2, the agency alleged that the appellant violated Office of Government of Ethics regulation 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 , when she used her public office for her own gain by sending the agency letter referred to in charge 1 from her Government email address to her personal…”
Sheila Clark v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2023). · cites it 5× “¶8 We have considered the appellant’s argument that the agency “expressly” found that she violated 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 , which prohibits a Federal employee from using his or her public office for private gain, but the administrative judge did not find the appellant “guilty” of…”
Sphatt v. Dhs (Fed. Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “647 , 652 (2016); see also 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 . Relatedly, the Agency could show misuse of credentials (Charge 2) by proving that Ms.”
United States v. Mohammad, 391 F. Supp. 3d 1066 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 2019). · cites it 2× “" 5 C.F.R 2635.702(b). More generally, the regulation bars improper endorsements, noting "An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise," except in…”
Felicia Jackson-Fisher v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2022). · cites it 2× “She also challenges the application of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 , which prohibits the use of her public office for private gain.”
Rotar v. Upper Pottsgrove Police Dep't (E.D. Pa. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 371 , concerning a conspiracy to commit offenses or to defraud the United States, and a regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 , concerning the misuse of government positions and resources.”
Williams v. Messa (E.D. Cal. 2022). “401 , 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 , 25 C.F.R. § 6 11.448, 5 U.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(b) — 1 case
United States v. Mohammad, 391 F. Supp. 3d 1066 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 2019). “" 5 C.F.R 2635.702(b). More generally, the regulation bars improper endorsements, noting "An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise," except in…”
— 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(c) — 1 case
United States v. Mohammad, 391 F. Supp. 3d 1066 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 2019). “" 5 C.F.R 2635.702(b). More generally, the regulation bars improper endorsements, noting "An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise," except in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.