Revolving Door Allegations: Federal Post-Employment Restrictions & Lobbying Investigations - 18 U.S.C. § 207

18 U.S.C. § 207 sets post-employment restrictions for certain former federal officers and employees, restricting when they can communicate with or appear before the Government on behalf of others.

The statute does not prohibit taking a private-sector job, but it may prohibit certain communications and representations depending on the former employee's position, prior involvement, the matter at issue, and timing.

For senior federal officials moving to a defense contractor, private equity firm, lobbying practice, or regulatory consultancy, the distinction between permissible private-sector work and prohibited representation can become the central issue in a federal investigation.

A former official may be able to advise a company internally while being barred from contacting the former agency about the same subject.

What Does 18 U.S.C. § 207 Prohibit?

Section 207 contains several separate post-government employment restrictions rather than one general “revolving door” offense. The principal executive branch restrictions include:

• A permanent restriction on representing another person before the Government concerning a particular matter involving specific parties in which the former employee personally and substantially participated
• A two-year restriction concerning a particular matter involving specific parties that was actually pending under the former employee's official responsibility during the one-year period before departure
• A one-year restriction concerning certain ongoing trade or treaty negotiations involving covered information
• A one-year restriction for former senior employees concerning communications or appearances before their former department or agency on matters for which they seek official action
• A two-year restriction for certain very senior executive branch officials concerning specified executive branch contacts

The statute also contains restrictions applicable to former Members of Congress, legislative branch employees, and certain conduct involving foreign entities. The subsection matters because the prohibited conduct and duration differ.

Does § 207 Prohibit Taking a Private-Sector Job?

No. Section 207 does not generally prevent a former federal employee from joining a private company, lobbying organization, investment firm, defense contractor, or consulting practice. The statute regulates specified post-government-service activities, not private employment itself.

That distinction matters when a former official joins a company that does business with the Government. Prosecutors may examine duties, client relationships, emails, meetings, presentations, and contacts with former colleagues. The question is what the former employee actually did.

OGE expressly states that § 207 does not bar former employees from accepting private employment; instead, it restricts certain activities performed on behalf of persons or organizations other than the United States.

When can a Communication become a Prohibited Representation?

Section 207 focuses on communications and appearances intended to influence government action. The regulations can reach oral, written, and electronic communications intended to be attributed to the former employee.

An investigation may therefore examine emails to agency personnel, calls with former colleagues, meetings, presentations, submissions, and other contacts.

OGE guidance also recognizes that behind-the-scenes assistance can be permissible when the former employee does not make the prohibited government contact.

This distinction matters for consultants and executives whose duties combine internal strategy with government relations. A former official may prepare briefing materials while another employee makes the government contact.

Whether that arrangement complies with § 207 depends on the applicable subsection and how the former employee participates.

What Must Prosecutors Establish in a Criminal § 207 Case?

The precise elements depend on the subsection charged. Section 207 repeatedly uses terms such as “knowingly” and, for specified prohibitions, “with the intent to influence.”

Those requirements can make the former employee's knowledge and purpose central issues. A federal investigation may examine:

• The employee's government position and dates of service
• Whether the person was a senior or very senior employee
• The particular matter and whether it involved specific parties
• Whether the former employee participated personally and substantially
• Whether the matter was under the employee's official responsibility
• The identity and role of the government employee contacted
• The timing of each communication or appearance
• Whether the communication was made on behalf of another person or entity
• What the former employee knew about the restrictions
• Whether the communication was intended to influence official action

What Defenses Can Be Raised in a Revolving Door Case?

A § 207 investigation requires close analysis of the statute, regulations, the former employee's duties, and the precise communications at issue. Potential defenses and challenges may include:

• The communication did not concern a covered particular matter
• The matter did not involve specific parties as required by the applicable subsection
• The former employee did not personally and substantially participate in the matter
• The matter was not under the former employee's official responsibility during the relevant period
• The former employee did not make the alleged communication or appearance
• The communication was not made on behalf of another person
• The communication lacked the required intent to influence
• The conduct was permissible behind-the-scenes assistance rather than prohibited representation
• An exception, waiver, or other statutory provision applies
• The Government cannot establish the required knowledge or willfulness

These issues may require reconstructing a former official's responsibilities before departure. Job descriptions may not accurately capture actual assignments, making agency records important.

What Should be Examined When Federal Agents Investigate Former Officials?

The first step is identifying which § 207 subsection the Government believes applies. The answer can change the restrictions, prohibited contacts, and prior involvement.

Organize the factual record around the former employee's government position and private-sector role. Relevant materials may include ethics opinions, departure paperwork, recusals, calendars, contracts, procurement files, emails, text messages, meeting records, and communications with former colleagues.

Pay particular attention to internal advice versus personal government contact. OGE post-government employment guidance explains that § 207(c), for example, does not prohibit behind-the-scenes assistance, although intermediary communications can create separate questions concerning attribution and intent.

Federal investigations also raise procedural issues concerning subpoenas, interviews, document collection, and searches. The timing and manner of evidence collection can affect subsequent litigation.

Hypothetical Case Study: Former Defense Department Official Accused of Illegal Revolving Door Lobbying

A former senior Department of Defense acquisition official leaves federal service and joins a private equity firm that owns a defense contractor seeking a $480 million follow-on procurement.

During his final year in Government, the official supervised an acquisition portfolio that included the contractor's program and participated in discussions concerning performance requirements, pricing, and the Government's evaluation of the contractor.

Six months after leaving Government, the former official helps the private equity firm assess the procurement and prepares briefing materials for the contractor.

He does not attend the contractor's formal meetings with the Department of Defense, but he emails a former agency colleague recommendations on the procurement and joins a conference call where the Government's acquisition strategy is discussed.

Federal prosecutors contend that the former official violated 18 U.S.C. § 207 by using his former position to influence the procurement.

The Government points to his senior status, his knowledge of the acquisition, his prior role in the program, and his participation in communications with agency personnel.

Federal Case Examination By Eisner Gorin LLP

Our attorneys at Eisner Gorin LLP would examine:

• Whether the procurement constituted the same particular matter in which the former official personally and substantially participated,
• Whether the relevant communication was made on behalf of another person, and
• Whether it was made with the intent to influence.

Our team would also examine whether his role fell within the restriction applicable to his precise government position and whether portions of his work constituted permissible behind-the-scenes assistance.

The investigation would then be tested against the documentary record. If the email concerned a separate policy issue rather than the specific procurement, if another employee authored and transmitted the substantive government communication, or if the former official's role did not satisfy the statutory requirements, those facts could materially undermine the prosecution's theory.

Our attorneys present the factual and legal issues directly to federal prosecutors and challenge the characterization of permissible private-sector consulting as prohibited representation.

The investigation ends without an indictment after prosecutors conclude the evidence does not establish the required statutory elements of a § 207 offense.

Related Federal Laws

Understanding related laws is essential in post-government employment investigations because prosecutors frequently charge multiple overlapping offenses alongside 18 U.S.C. § 207 to target bribery, disclosure of confidential acquisition information, pre-departure conflicts of interest, foreign influence, and deceptive statements made to federal investigators.

• 18 U.S.C. § 208 (Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest): Prohibits executive branch employees from participating personally and substantially in official matters that directly affect their financial interests or those of potential private employers while still in federal service.

• 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses): Criminalizes giving, offering, or promising anything of value to a public official with the intent to influence an official act, or a public official seeking or receiving anything of value in exchange for official influence.

• 41 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2107 (Procurement Integrity Act): Prohibits former procurement and acquisition officials from accepting compensation from certain defense contractors within one year, and bars obtaining or disclosing contractor bid or proposal information.

• 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Statements or Entries Generally): Penalizes knowingly and willfully making materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or concealing facts in any matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government, including ethics disclosures and investigative interviews.

• 2 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995): Regulates the registration and reporting requirements for individual lobbyists and organizations engaging in federal lobbying activities with legislative and executive branch officials.

• 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. (Foreign Agents Registration Act - FARA): Requires individuals acting as agents of foreign principals who engage in political or lobbying activities in the United States to make public disclosures of their relationships and activities.

• 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States): Criminalizes agreements between two or more persons to commit a federal crime or to defraud the United States government or any of its agencies in any manner or for any purpose.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the difference between internal consulting and illegal lobbying under 18 U.S.C. § 207?

Internal consulting involves advising a private company behind the scenes on government processes, strategy, or policy without contacting federal agency officials. Illegal lobbying under § 207 occurs when a former official makes direct, attributable communications or appearances before federal personnel on behalf of a client or employer to influence official action.

Does 18 U.S.C. § 207 apply to legislative branch employees and Members of Congress?

Yes. Section 207 includes specific post-employment restrictions for former Members of Congress and senior legislative staff. Former Senators are subject to a two-year cooling-off period, while former Representatives and senior congressional staff face a one-year ban on lobbying current members or legislative staff.

What constitutes "personal and substantial participation" in a government matter?

Under OGE regulations, "personal and substantial participation" means direct, material involvement in a matter through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, investigation, or rendering advice. It requires more than official responsibility, knowledge, or administrative oversight.

Are there any exceptions or waivers to 18 U.S.C. § 207 restrictions?

Yes. Statutory exceptions exist for communications made on behalf of state or local governments, accredited institutions of higher education, scientific or technological communications approved by agency heads, and testimony given under oath in court proceedings.

How does a formal OGE ethics opinion protect a former federal employee?

Obtaining written post-employment ethics advice from an agency Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) before joining the private sector establishes strong evidence of good faith. While not an absolute legal defense, strict reliance on written DAEO advice directly rebuts claims of the "willful" or "knowing" intent required for criminal prosecution under § 207.

The federal criminal defense attorneys at Eisner Gorin LLP can help you. Schedule your consultation by calling (818) 781-1570 or using the contact form. Our law firm is based in Los Angeles.