The peaceful transfer of power starts now

As another contentious election unfolds, a familiar sound echoes through federal workplaces: silence. This silence stems from the Hatch Act, a critical law designed to protect the neutrality of the civil service. But the problem isn’t the law itself—it’s the application. 

Misunderstandings and hypervigilance often stifle essential—and fully legal—conversations about mental health, political diversity, and the peaceful transfer of power. This silence leaves federal employees, among the most impacted by elections, alone with their anxiety. This can intensify fear, isolation, and reinforce the harmful perception that political diversity isn’t welcome. 

Instead, the federal workplace needs both clear boundaries and open, empathetic conversation around political transitions. Federal leaders should go beyond reiterating Hatch Act prohibitions to create space for employees to share concerns and wisdom with each other as they renew their commitment to nonpartisan service. Doing so is a vital down payment for the peaceful transfer of power to come.

The Hatch Act in Practice

Every four years, agencies remind employees about the Hatch Act’s strict rules against political activities like campaigning, fundraising, and misusing official titles or uniforms.

These reminders are effective—perhaps too effective. In practice Hatch also curtails essential conversations about well-being, political diversity, and the important role federal employees play in transfers of power. Even casual mentions of transitions can prompt nervous jokes like, “Oops, hope that wasn’t a Hatch Act violation,” revealing widespread confusion about what the Act actually prohibits. In my 15 years in government, I’ve yet to see an agency address the elephant—or donkey—in the room: this is a tough time to be a federal employee.

The Hidden Cost of Silence

The Hatch Act, created nearly a century ago to address blatant vote-buying, hasn’t kept up with our modern understanding of human behavior. While federal employees are rightly expected to remain nonpartisan in their work, it’s entirely normal for them to have emotions about important, uncertain events, especially in today’s polarized environment. The de facto silence around these emotions isn’t just awkward—it’s harmful.

First, repressing emotions doesn’t make them disappear, it drives them underground, where they can manifest in harmful ways. For instance, ignoring anxieties can lead to catastrophizing—where employees fixate on worst-case scenarios—which only amplifies their stress and fear. In his seminal book Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman explains: “When we ignore emotions, they only become stronger.”

Second, unspoken anxieties harm workplace relationships. Leaders are responsible for helping their teams navigate change, and when they remain silent, employees notice. Instead of engaging in productive, if challenging, conversations about how transitions might affect long term goals or the experience of holding personal views at odds with policy, these concerns are bottled up. This can lead to disengagement and even drive post-election resignations, particularly among younger employees who haven’t been through transitions before.

Finally, while the Hatch Act rightly prohibits overt political markers at work, like buttons or posters or in social media profiles, the 2.3 million federal employees are undeniably politically diverse. Silence prevents us from affirming that political identities are a valuable form of diversity and fuels subconscious and unconscious bias that could influence hiring decisions, promotions, and daily interactions. I’ve seen colleagues clam up when they sense they’re in the minority in casual conversations about policy issues, while those perceived as aligned with current leadership—based perhaps on their resume or stray comment—might be favored. It is possible to acknowledge these identities without indulging them, fostering a more inclusive environment that will be crucial in the months ahead.

The Power of Dialogue to Transform Anxiety

During my first transition as a federal employee, a State Department supervisor changed the course of my career. She listened with genuine empathy as I shared my concerns about the political shift, then offered her perspective based on a prior transition. She helped me understand that adaptation —whether to a new president, other changing leadership, or even new laws—is a fundamental part of a long and meaningful career in public service. While a leadership change might occasionally prompt a federal employee to consider leaving, if that mindset becomes widespread—or a knee jerk reaction—it undermines the foundation of a professional, nonpartisan federal workforce.

As David Brooks notes in his excellent book about conversation How to Know a Person, we learn best through meaningful conversation, not isolated reflection. As we approach another transition, conversations like the one I had can help federal employees step out of the disorienting news cycle. 

How might conversation help? For one, dialogue on election anxiety can transform stress into connection. We can recognize that we aren’t alone and start to move towards accepting that uncertainty and political cycles are part of life.  

Second, dialogue helps us find our agency. When stressed, it’s easy to lose sight of practical ways to manage anxiety. Conversations can prompt us to focus on what we can control, such as scenario planning, reframing priorities in ways that resonate across party lines, and brainstorming ways to build on common ground.

Finally, talking to our fellow public servants can remind us of the crucial role we play in the peaceful transfer of power. It’s a responsibility and privilege that I often take for granted – and one that resonates across the political spectrum. John F. Kennedy said, “A strong and courageous administration can meet the needs of a nation, but only when it respects the peaceful transfer of power.” Ronald Reagan echoed this sentiment: “The peaceful transfer of power is an extraordinary example of how democracy works.”

Open Dialogue in Practice

There are valid reasons that federal leaders are cautious about engaging with these charged topics. But there is ample space between blanket silence and an illegal political free-for-all. Here are three practical steps federal leaders can take to foster open and bounded dialogue as agencies, teams, or one-on-one:

• Name the Anxiety: Recognize and validate the stress and uncertainty that employees feel during election seasons. “Name it to tame it” is a science-backed approach to help disarm reactivity and channel emotions into practical action.
• Welcome Political Diversity: A politically diverse workplace is a strength. Encourage active listening and curiosity in conversations. Political debate doesn't belong in the federal workplace but bridging differences and identifying shared values certainly do.
• Facilitate Conversations on Core Values: In these turbulent times, agency leaders might reinforce values like nonpartisanship, resilience, innovation, and openness. Encourage employees to share insights from past transitions, allowing them to better appreciate their role in a long history of peaceful transfers of power. Although these times feel unprecedented, federal employees have been here before and know what to do.

A Mindset, Not a Moment

It's understandable that federal leaders might want to steer clear of sensitive topics, especially given the tense times and potential legal liability. However, doing so carries its own risks—creating a less human work environment that ignores real concerns and missing an opportunity to reinforce the proud tradition of nonpartisan federal service. 

The peaceful transfer of power isn’t just a moment, it’s a mindset. So, let’s go beyond Hatch Act compliance and engage in meaningful conversations that uphold its true purpose.

For authoritative guidance on the Hatch Act, check out the Office of Special Council’s FAQs.

Alex Snider is a strategy lead in the federal government. Previously he worked as a diplomat in the State Department, in the U.S. Senate, and at the World Bank. He is a certified mindful facilitator and is involved in various efforts to improve employee wellbeing in government. You can find him on LinkedIn. He has written on bringing humanity to government, including emotions in the workplace, authenticity, and the need to take breaks.

This op-ed is written in Snider's personal capacity and the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of his agency or the United States.