Chapter 12 Revolving Doors

Federal ethics law aims to regulate what it cannot prohibit: the gravitational pull of private sector employment, both while in government and after government service. For example, the post-employment restrictions in 18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205, 207, and 208, reinforced by 5 C.F.R Parts 2635 and 2641, limit when and how former officials can interact with the government.  These laws prohibit representing private clients in matters handled while in office, impose “cooling-off” periods for senior officials, and require recusals during job negotiations. Rule 1.11 of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct mirrors those restrictions for lawyers, in effect requiring law firms to screen former government attorneys whose inside knowledge could advantage private clients. Additional layers, including presidential ethics pledges and the Procurement Integrity Act, have been imposed in the past, in an effort to address public concerns with the “revolving door.”  These rules reflect the tension at the center of American governance: the Federal Government relies on specialized expertise, but must regulate that same expertise once it leaves. The very people best equipped to advise the government are often those whose interests may lie outside the government.

            Cases like Medico Industries and recent OGE advisories show how difficult it is to draw clear lines for individuals who come and go between the public and private sectors.  The readings emphasize this dilemma. Mark Leibovich’s This Town portrays influence as Washington’s native language – as an ecosystem built on social capital, reputation, and access to power. Matthew Yglesias’s article, “Bring Back the Revolving Door,” argues that circulation between public service and the private sector is a structural feature of modern governance. The presidential ethics pledges reveal how successive administrations have tried to manage that reality through different conceptions of integrity. President Obama’s 2009 pledge treated lobbying restrictions as moral boundary-setting, designed to signal a break from perceived cynicism. President Trump’s 2017 order reframed ethics as loyalty enforcement, broadening post-employment bans while narrowing internal oversight. President Biden’s 2021 pledge sought to restore procedural legitimacy, re-emphasizing disclosure and recusal over punitive exclusion. Each version turned ethics compliance into a reflection of governing philosophy—one emphasizing virtue, another allegiance, and the other transparency.

Revolving door statutes and regulations define boundaries through time limits and prohibitions, but the practical realities demonstrate that influence operates through relationships and memory. Statutes can restrict formal advocacy, but cannot eliminate the informal authority that follows those who have served. The readings suggest that ethics law performs a stabilizing role: it affirms the government’s commitment to impartiality, even when the substance of neutrality is contestable.  The revolving door endures because governance relies on experience, and experience cannot be fully separated from those who exercise it.