As the federal government entered a shutdown on October 1st, a new controversy emerged over how federal agencies communicate during political standoffs. Pop-ups and banners appeared on agency websites blaming one side of Congress for the funding lapse, prompting questions about whether such messaging violated federal rules meant to keep government communications neutral. The episode has drawn bipartisan concern and renewed scrutiny of the Hatch Act, a 1939 law that governs political activity in federal workplaces.
The Shutdown and Federal Website Pop-ups
The government shutdown began after negotiations over the federal budget collapsed. Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, needed Democratic support in the Senate to pass a series of funding bills, or Continuing Resolutions, but failed to reach an agreement before the deadline. In the hours before the shutdown took effect, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, posted a full-screen red banner stating, “The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government. HUD will use available resources to help Americans in need.” Users could not access the website until clicking through the message.
By the next morning, similar statements appeared on other agency websites, each assigning blame to “radical” Democrats. HUD defended the banner, claiming it criticized an ideology rather than a political party or candidate. Democrats, however, said the post represented a misuse of federal communication channels.
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development Official Site, October 1, 2025
The Hatch Act
The controversy surrounding the pop-ups has drawn new attention to the Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939 that limits partisan political advocacy by federal employees. The act was established to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan manner, to protect employees from political coercion, and to guarantee that public officials are promoted based on merit rather than party affiliation.
While the Hatch Act does not explicitly address digital communications, it prohibits using taxpayer-funded platforms for political messaging. Legal experts say the shutdown pop-up statements may not directly violate the law—since they did not advocate for or against a candidate—but they likely conflict with its broader purpose. Donald Sherman, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, stated that the posts “certainly violate the spirit of that law.”
The Controversy
As the shutdown continued, lawmakers reported that some federal employees’ automatic email replies had been altered without their consent. Employees from the Department of Education disclosed having initially used a nonpartisan out-of-office email template, but later realized that the wording of their email had been changed to blame Democrats for the shutdown. One such employee was frustrated that their name was being attached to words that were not their own, stating, “They went in and manipulated my out-of-office reply. I guess they’re now making us all guilty of violating the Hatch Act.”. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland condemned the changes, calling them “a perversion of government services into instruments of partisan propaganda.” He warned that politicizing standard communication channels undermines public trust in federal institutions.
Republicans defended the messages, arguing that Democrats forced the shutdown by refusing to fund the budget proposal. They maintained that the statements were factual explanations of the impasse and reflected the administration’s position that it wanted to “keep the government open for the American people.” Democrats countered that the administration’s messaging used public funds for partisan purposes, violating a federal spending provision that bans the use of appropriated funds for “publicity or propaganda” designed to influence legislation.
Looking Ahead
The pop-up dispute spotlights broader questions about how government agencies communicate during political crises. The Hatch Act was written long before the internet era, yet its core intent—to keep government functions nonpartisan—remains central to public accountability. Even if the recent messages do not result in legal penalties, the episode demonstrates how easily partisan conflict can spill into the official operations of nonpartisan government agencies.
The Office of Special Counsel, which enforces the Hatch Act, has not announced any investigation into the matter. Future incidents will likely continue testing the boundaries between transparency and advocacy, forcing agencies to navigate the difficult line between informing the public and advancing political narratives.
Asiya Siddiqui is a student at the University of California, Berkeley, majoring in Economics and minoring in Public Policy.
When Federal Websites Get Political: The Hatch Act in the Digital Age was originally published by the Alliance for Civic Engagement.
