Trump’s use of border agents raises questions
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump was meeting privately with U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Oval Office Thursday when he suddenly told them, “Let’s go out, see the press.” His idea was for them to explain to reporters “the importance of the wall.” But the spectacle that ensued raises legal and ethical questions.
Experts said the president’s use of the officers in what amounted to a border barrier infomercial on afternoon cable television likely did not run astray of a 1939 law that bars most federal employees from conducting political activities while in their official roles. But they indicated other federal laws and guidelines might have been breached in just the latest example of the 45th president’s insistence on making a splash almost daily and eviscerating Washington norms that have been followed by Republican and Democratic presidents alike for decades.
During the Oval Office meeting, the president said the agents “basically said — and I think I can take the word ‘basically’ out: ‘Without a wall, you cannot have border security. Without a very strong form of barrier — call it what you will — but without a wall, you cannot have border security. It won’t work.’”
Rank-and-file federal employees almost never appear in the White House briefing room to make political statements. So it was notable that one of the officers on Thursday made a point to say the group was not there for political reasons — but to advocate for a needed public policy.
Trump turned the podium over to several of the agents, including Art Del Cueto, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council and a Border Patrol agent in Arizona.
“We are all affected by this shutdown. We have skin in the game,” Del Cueto said, referring to the agents not getting paid since it is part of the Department of Homeland Security, one of the unfunded agencies affected by the partial government shutdown. “However, it comes down to border security.
“And we are extremely grateful to President Trump, and we fully support what he is doing to take care of our nation’s borders, to take care of the future of this United States. It has nothing to do with political parties,” he said. “You all got to ask yourself this question: If I come to your home, do you want me to knock on the front door, or do you want me to climb through that window?”
Trump also brought up Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, who said he has been a Border Patrol agent for over two decades. Despite being a current federal employee, Judd appeared to press Congress for funding.
“I worked in Naco, Ariz., for 10 years. We didn’t have physical barriers in Naco, and illegal immigration and drug smuggling was absolutely out of control. We built those walls, those physical barriers, and illegal immigration dropped exponentially. Anywhere that you look, where we have built walls, they have worked. They have been an absolute necessity for Border Patrol agents in securing the border,” Judd said. “There’s also a lot of talk on this shutdown, that federal employees do not agree with the shutdown. I will tell you that’s not true.”
Hector Garza, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council and a Border Patrol agent in Texas, was more blunt in directly lobbying lawmakers when it was his turn at the podium.
“We want to thank President Trump for advocating for Border Patrol agents. And again, we ask our congressmen to fund border security and fund the border wall,” Garza said.
The 1939 Hatch Act prohibits most executive branch employees — except the president, vice president and a handful of others — from conducting political business while in their official capacity.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders frequently declines to answer questions with strictly political premises, citing that very law.
Norm Eisen, White House special counsel for ethics and government reform under former President Barack Obama, said through an assistant that he “does not believe that it was a Hatch Act violation because it was not an electoral matter, but a question of policy, and therefore, legally permissible.”
Danielle Brian, executive director of the non-partisan Project On Government Oversight, agreed the agents’ appearance and comments likely are not a direct violation of the 1939 law. But, she added, it “might be a violation of November guidance from OSC that we objected to for a number of reasons, including that it would become impossible for White House officials to speak about administration policy without violating the Hatch Act.”
She was referring to guidance issued by the United States Office of Special Counsel, which describes itself as “an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency.”