Ethics questions turn on facts, and the facts here are yours. Everything below is orientation so you can ask your agency ethics official a precise question. Ask before accepting anything — the cost of asking is a short email, and the cost of not asking runs to your career.
I What the rule actually prohibits
An employee may not receive compensation from any source other than the Government for teaching, speaking or writing that occurs while they are a Government employee and that relates to their official duties.
Read that carefully, because the common misreading is costly in the wrong direction. The activity is not prohibited. The payment is. The same lecture, the same article, the same conference session, delivered without a fee, is frequently permissible — and is exactly how federal professionals build reputations.
The regulation's own example
An employee is invited to speak on a matter related to her official duties. She is offered a speaker's fee of $200 and reimbursement of her travel expenses.
That single distinction resolves most real situations. Other authorities can still apply — 18 U.S.C. 209 addresses supplementation of a federal salary from outside sources, and anyone who files a financial disclosure report must report travel and travel reimbursements from non-government sources subject to the applicable thresholds.
II When it relates to your duties
The test is broader than instinct suggests. An activity relates to your official duties if any one of several circumstances applies.
| Circumstance |
|---|
| The activity is undertaken as part of your official duties |
| The invitation was extended primarily because of your official position |
| The invitation or the offer of compensation came from someone whose interests may be substantially affected by how you perform your duties |
| The subject deals in significant part with matters connected to your work |
“Invited primarily because of your official position” describes a great many speaking invitations a federal professional receives. If the organiser wanted the person who runs that programme, the invitation is related — regardless of how general the topic sounds or how much personal expertise you bring to it.
III The expertise carve-out
There is a genuine exception, and it is narrower than people want it to be but wider than they fear.
The regulation provides that the relevant paragraph does not preclude an employee — other than a covered noncareer employee — from receiving compensation for teaching, speaking or writing on a subject within the employee's discipline or inherent area of expertise based on their educational background or experience, even though the activity deals generally with a subject within the agency's areas of responsibility.
| The carve-out helps | It does not help |
|---|---|
| A specialist writing in their own professional field | Someone invited because of the position they hold |
| Expertise grounded in your education or experience | Expertise that exists because of your access |
| General subject matter within the agency’s remit | The specific programme you administer |
The distinction is between what you know and what you do. An economist who was an economist before joining the agency is on far firmer ground writing about economics than the same person writing about the programme they run.
Note also that the carve-out excludes covered noncareer employees, who face additional outside-earned-income limits entirely separate from this section.
IV Using your title
Your title is the most valuable asset in any profile and the most constrained.
Employees may use or permit the use of their title or position in connection with an article published in a scientific or professional journal — provided the title is accompanied by a reasonably prominent disclaimer satisfactory to the agency, stating that the views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the agency or the United States.
Employees ordinarily addressed by a rank or a general term of address — a military or ambassadorial rank, or a term such as Judge — may use it in connection with teaching, speaking or writing. Reference to an official title other than in a teaching, speaking or writing capacity is governed separately, under the use-of-office provisions.
Stating your employer and position factually on a professional profile is ordinary and expected. What invites difficulty is trading on the title — using it to lend weight to commentary, to promote something, or in a way that implies the agency endorses what you are saying. The disclaimer mechanism exists precisely because the line is about implied institutional endorsement, not about mentioning where you work.
V Endorsements and inside information
Two further prohibitions close off tactics that are standard practice elsewhere.
You may not use your public office for private gain, and that includes endorsement of a product, service or enterprise. The familiar reputation-building move of publicly recommending vendors, platforms and tools is not available to you the way it is to a private-sector professional. People routinely assume the rule is limited to their own financial interest. It is not.
You may not use nonpublic information for private gain. The insight that would make your commentary genuinely valuable is frequently the insight you cannot share, and recognising that boundary in advance is easier than retreating across it afterwards.
Separately, the Hatch Act governs partisan political activity, and it reaches online conduct as it reaches conduct anywhere. The rules differ by whether you are further or less restricted, and the consequences run to removal — see the Hatch Act, and ask rather than infer.
VI What you can actually do
Having removed the revenue, what remains is most of the value. Reputation and income were always separable; only the commercial playbook conflates them.
| Generally available | Generally not |
|---|---|
| Speaking without a fee | Speaking for a fee, where related to duties |
| Publishing with the agency disclaimer | Paid writing on your programme |
| Presenting at conferences | Sponsored or endorsed content |
| Stating your role factually | Trading on the title |
| Accepting travel reimbursement | Accepting the honorarium |
The left column builds exactly what matters for federal advancement: a visible record of competence that selecting officials, Executive Resources Boards and Qualifications Review Boards can see. That record is what ECQ narratives are drawn from, and it is worth more inside government than a paid newsletter would be.
If your ambitions eventually run outside government, note that post-employment restrictions are a separate framework with their own timing rules — and that they bite hardest on exactly the expertise a public profile advertises.
VII The question, as a flow
Someone has offered you money to speak or write. Work down.
Can I accept this?
Orientation only — the answer at the bottom is always “ask your ethics official”.
VIII The playbook
| Situation | What to do |
|---|---|
| Offered a speaking fee | Assume no until your ethics official says otherwise. |
| Offered fee plus travel | The travel is often acceptable where the fee is not. |
| Invited because of your role | That alone makes it related to your duties. |
| Writing in your own professional field | The discipline carve-out may apply. Confirm it does. |
| Publishing in a journal | Use the disclaimer, and get the wording approved. |
| Building an online profile | State your role factually. Do not trade on the title. |
| Tempted to recommend a vendor | Endorsement is prohibited. Do not. |
| Your best insight is nonpublic | It stays nonpublic. Write around it or not at all. |
| Anything political online | Hatch Act applies. Ask rather than infer. |
| Planning to leave government | Post-employment restrictions are a separate framework. |
Building a profile that helps rather than costs
- Find out who your agency ethics official is before you need them.
- Ask before accepting any payment, however small.
- Separate what you know from what you do, and stay on the former.
- Get disclaimer wording approved once and reuse it.
- Speak and write without compensation, and do it often.
- State your position factually on professional profiles.
- Avoid endorsing products, services or enterprises entirely.
- Keep nonpublic information out of everything you publish.
- Record what you present and publish — it feeds your ECQ narratives.
- Report travel reimbursements if you file a financial disclosure report.
Frequently asked questions
Not where it relates to your official duties. Under 5 CFR 2635.807 an employee may not receive compensation from any source other than the Government for teaching, speaking or writing that occurs while they are a Government employee and that relates to their official duties. The prohibition is on the compensation rather than on the activity itself, so the same talk given without a fee is frequently permissible. This is the single provision that most distinguishes federal professional reputation-building from the commercial version.
The regulation sets out several circumstances. The activity is undertaken as part of your official duties. The circumstances indicate the invitation was extended primarily because of your official position. The invitation or the offer of compensation came from a person whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of your duties. Or the subject deals in significant part with specified matters connected to your work. Any one of them is enough, so the test catches far more than people expect.
There is a narrow one. The regulation provides that the relevant paragraph does not preclude an employee, other than a covered noncareer employee, from receiving compensation for teaching, speaking or writing on a subject within the employee's discipline or inherent area of expertise based on their educational background or experience, even though the activity deals generally with a subject within the agency's areas of responsibility. That helps a specialist writing in their own professional field. It does not help someone invited because of the job they hold.
Often yes, and the distinction matters. The regulation's own example describes an employee offered a $200 speaker's fee and reimbursement of travel expenses for a speech related to her official duties: she may accept the travel reimbursement but not the fee. Other authorities can still bite, including 18 U.S.C. 209 on supplementation of salary, and employees who file financial disclosure reports must report travel and travel reimbursements from non-government sources subject to the applicable thresholds.
In defined circumstances. Employees may use or permit the use of their title or position in connection with an article published in a scientific or professional journal, provided the title is accompanied by a reasonably prominent disclaimer satisfactory to the agency stating that the views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the agency or the United States. Employees ordinarily addressed by a rank or a term of address such as Judge may use it. Reference to an official title other than in a teaching, speaking or writing capacity is governed separately.
No. The standards of conduct prohibit using public office for private gain, and that includes endorsement of a product, service or enterprise. This is why the familiar practice of building a reputation by publicly recommending vendors and tools is not available to you in the way it is to a private-sector professional. It also applies more broadly than to your own financial interest, which people routinely misunderstand as the limit of the rule.
The Hatch Act governs partisan political activity, and it applies to online conduct as it does to conduct anywhere else. The rules differ depending on whether you are further restricted or less restricted, and the specifics matter far more than general impressions about what is permitted on a personal account. Because the consequences run to removal, this is a question for your agency ethics official rather than one to resolve from general reading.
A great deal, provided you separate reputation from revenue. Speak and write without compensation. Publish in professional journals with the disclaimer. Present at conferences. Build a public record of competence that colleagues and selecting officials can see. What you generally cannot do is charge for the expertise your federal position gives you, and the discipline of asking your ethics official before accepting anything is the practical difference between a career asset and a problem.