Government Integrity & Equal Justice
PROPOSED / DRAFT — GOVERNMENT INTEGRITY & EQUAL JUSTICE
POSITION
Politicians, executives, law-enforcement officers, regulators, public officials, and other powerful people should face the same criminal definitions, charging standards, defenses, due process, sentencing factors, and punishment as an average person under comparable facts and circumstances.
Status, wealth, office, political affiliation, professional influence, or institutional power must not create special leniency or selective prosecution. The same principle also prohibits harsher treatment merely because a person is unpopular or politically opposed.
WHY THIS MATTERS
Public authority loses legitimacy when similar conduct receives different treatment because of power, wealth, office, institutional loyalty, or political affiliation.
ETHICS, CONFLICTS & CORRUPTION
Government ethics rules should address:
Financial disclosure
Conflicts of interest and mandatory recusal
Gifts and improper personal benefit
Evidence and public-record preservation
Bribery, kickbacks, and corruption
Independent investigation
Whistleblower protection
Meaningful and proportionate penalties
Officials should disclose material conflicts before participating in a decision. Recusal decisions and authorized exceptions should be documented and reviewable while protecting lawful privacy and active investigations.
POLITICAL NEUTRALITY IN ENFORCEMENT
Officials entrusted with enforcing or administering the law must perform mandatory legal duties without partisan favoritism or retaliation.
Legitimate prosecutorial, administrative, and enforcement discretion remains necessary. Government authority may not be selectively exercised simply because an official likes or dislikes a political party, ideology, organization, speaker, defendant, complainant, or other person.
Charging, investigation, benefits administration, permitting, regulation, public records, and other official functions should use lawful and consistently applied standards. Intentional partisan misuse of authority should be subject to investigation, corrective action, appeal, and proportionate discipline or penalties.
Enforce the law. Apply it equally. Answer for your authority.
FEDERAL POLITICAL NEUTRALITY & PUBLIC TRUST
Every federal employee, officer, appointee, contractor exercising federal authority, and person acting under color of federal law must use public power for the lawful public mission rather than for a political party, candidate, faction, ideology, personal alliance, or retaliation against protected speech.
No federal official or employee may knowingly use investigations, prosecutions, intelligence collection, surveillance, audits, inspections, licensing, permits, grants, contracts, benefits, classification, leaks, public communications, regulatory enforcement, personnel authority, or access to government information to help or harm a political party, candidate, official, organization, or person because of lawful political belief or activity.
Heightened Restrictions for Sensitive Positions
Heightened political-neutrality rules apply to federal law-enforcement officers, prosecutors, intelligence and national-security personnel, protective services, inspectors general, criminal and civil investigators, regulatory-enforcement personnel, election-administration personnel, adjudicators, clearance decision-makers, and senior career officials with authority over coercive government action or sensitive information.
While serving in a covered sensitive position, a person may vote, hold private beliefs, express lawful personal opinions within applicable professional limits, attend ordinary civic events, and participate in nonpartisan public life. The person may not manage or work for a partisan campaign, hold party office, solicit or coordinate political fundraising, use an official title to endorse or oppose a candidate, direct subordinates toward partisan activity, or coordinate government action with a party or campaign.
Recusal, Records & Independent Review
A covered employee must disclose a material campaign, party, financial, personal, or organizational conflict and recuse from a matter when an objective observer would reasonably question impartiality. A written decision by an independent ethics official is required before overriding recusal.
Sensitive investigations and enforcement decisions must preserve auditable assignment, predicate, evidence, charging, declination, surveillance, access, and disclosure records. Cases involving elected officials, candidates, political organizations, news organizations, or major constitutional activity require an independent written review showing the lawful basis, material evidence, consistent treatment of comparable cases, and safeguards against partisan direction.
Complaints, Consequences & Protected Rights
A complaint receives a written decision within 30 calendar days, an independent appeal within the next 30 calendar days, and a final administrative complaint or review within the next 30 calendar days. On day 91, administrative remedies are exhausted and judicial review is available. Classified evidence may use cleared independent review, but classification may not conceal political abuse.
A proven violation may result in recusal, evidence exclusion, corrective action, suspension, removal, loss of clearance or peace-officer authority, federal-employment disqualification, professional discipline, restitution, and the civil remedies already established for constitutional violations. Fabrication, obstruction, unlawful surveillance, evidence concealment, retaliation, false statements, conspiracy, or another independently defined crime must be referred under the applicable criminal law.
Political opinion alone is not misconduct. No employee may be investigated or punished merely for voting, privately belonging to a lawful party, holding a lawful belief, making protected personal speech, reporting wrongdoing, or refusing an unlawful partisan order. The law regulates misuse of public authority, not private thought.
Core MPA standard: Federal power belongs to the American people. No party, President, agency, prosecutor, intelligence service, or law-enforcement body may turn it into a weapon against lawful political opponents.
DOCUMENTED PUBLIC-SERVICE PERFORMANCE BONUSES
Federal, state, and local public agencies may award an employee a performance bonus of up to $18,000 in any 12-month period. A bonus is earned recognition, not an entitlement. No employee is guaranteed a bonus or the maximum amount.
Every award must be supported by a written, reviewable performance record. Supervisors and agency leadership must document both good and poor performance and explain the amount awarded. Legitimate factors may include attendance, punctuality, completed work, accuracy, lawful conduct, professionalism, public service, teamwork, training, leadership, problem solving, de-escalation, evidence quality, and sustained reliable performance.
For law-enforcement officers, corrections personnel, investigators, inspectors, prosecutors, regulators, and similar personnel, no bonus may be based on arrests, citations, searches, seizures, fines, convictions, charging referrals, removals, forfeitures, revenue collected, complaints rejected, or any quota or predetermined outcome. No employee may be rewarded for always taking enforcement action or always declining it. The quality, lawfulness, accuracy, and fairness of the work control.
The affected employee may review the supporting record, submit a written response, and request an independent administrative review within 30 calendar days. Aggregate agency reporting must disclose total awards, distribution ranges, governing criteria, reversals, and audit findings while protecting lawful personnel privacy.
Bonuses must be paid only from lawfully appropriated personnel funds, never from fines, forfeitures, penalties, or revenue generated by the employee or unit. Knowingly falsifying, concealing, or manipulating a performance record requires correction, recovery of an improperly paid award, and discipline of the responsible person consistent with due process.
NONPARTISAN PROTECTION FOR CONGRESS AND THE SUPREME COURT
Every serving Member of Congress must have access to at least one trained protective officer during official travel, public events, and other public-duty periods outside secured federal facilities. Every serving Supreme Court Justice must have at least two trained protective officers during official travel, public appearances, and other exposed movements. A documented threat assessment may expand either level to continuous residential, family, or 24-hour protection when necessary.
The United States Capitol Police should administer congressional protection. The United States Marshals Service and Supreme Court Police should coordinate protection for the Justices. Protection must be provided without regard to party, ideology, seniority, judicial philosophy, or political favor.
Protective officers are security personnel, not personal servants, political staff, or intelligence collectors. They may obtain only the scheduling, location, travel, threat, and emergency information reasonably necessary for protection. Unrelated political, personal, or privileged information may not be collected, retained, or disclosed.
Independent Inspectors General must audit staffing, overtime, training, procurement, threat-based assignments, privacy compliance, and political neutrality. Public reporting must disclose aggregate staffing, annual cost, readiness, and major deficiencies without revealing operational details that could endanger a protected person.
Preliminary Cost Estimate
The recommended official-duty model is estimated at approximately $500 million to $700 million in gross annual federal cost. That estimate assumes roughly 1,659 direct protective positions, a 25 percent allowance for supervision, intelligence, administration, leave coverage, and logistics, and an estimated fully loaded cost of $225,000 to $320,000 per position. Existing Capitol Police, congressional protection, Supreme Court Police, and Marshals Service resources would offset part of the gross amount, so the net new cost should be lower. Congress must obtain independent agency and Congressional Budget Office scoring before appropriation. A literal continuous one-officer post for every Member and two-officer posts for every Justice would likely cost approximately $800 million to $1.1 billion annually and is not the recommended base model.
IMPLEMENTATION & ACCOUNTABILITY
Agencies should publish governing standards, maintain decision records, preserve relevant evidence, provide written reasons for consequential decisions, and maintain accessible complaint and appeal procedures.
Credible allegations involving senior officials or institutional conflicts should receive review by an authority with sufficient independence, resources, and access to evidence. Investigations must not presume guilt and must protect notice, counsel, access to evidence, impartial adjudication, and other ordinary constitutional safeguards.
Aggregate audits should compare outcomes for similarly situated people and identify unexplained disparities, unusual declination or approval patterns, retaliation, evidence failures, and repeated conflicts. Statistical disparity may justify review but does not by itself prove individual misconduct.
WHAT WE WILL MEASURE
Public reporting should track substantiated conflicts, recusals, ethics findings, whistleblower retaliation, unresolved audit findings, complaint and appeal outcomes, decision reversals, evidence-preservation failures, and the time required to resolve serious misconduct allegations.
Government Ethics, Corruption, and Public Accountability
Congressional and Senior-Official Stock Trading
Members of Congress, the President, Vice President, Cabinet officials, senior regulators, and other officials with access to material nonpublic government information should not actively trade individual stocks while serving.
Broad index funds, diversified mutual funds, Treasury securities, and qualified blind trusts should remain permitted.
Spouses and dependent children should be subject to substantially similar rules where necessary to prevent circumvention.
Using nonpublic information obtained through public office for personal financial gain, or providing that information to another person for financial gain, should carry meaningful civil and criminal penalties.
Public Office for Personal or Family Enrichment
Public office may not be used as a private business opportunity.
Officials should be prohibited from directing government contracts, regulatory favors, public spending, or other official benefits toward businesses they or immediate family members substantially control without lawful disclosure, recusal, and independent review.
Bribery, kickbacks, concealed conflicts, and deliberate misuse of office for private enrichment should carry enhanced penalties.
Nepotism
Government officials should generally be prohibited from appointing, directly supervising, or setting compensation for immediate family members.
Any narrowly justified exception should require disclosure and independent review.
Abuse of Government Classification
National-security classification may be used to protect legitimate national-security information.
It may not be used primarily to conceal:
illegality;
corruption;
government misconduct;
embarrassment;
waste;
political damage.
Intentional misuse of classification to conceal wrongdoing should trigger independent investigation and disciplinary or criminal consequences where appropriate.
Government NDAs and Secret Settlements
Government agencies should not use nondisclosure agreements or confidential settlements merely to hide government wrongdoing.
Taxpayer-funded settlements should presumptively disclose:
the amount;
agency involved;
general nature of the claim;
whether misconduct was substantiated.
Victim privacy, classified information, minors, and legitimate investigative concerns remain protected.
Foreign-Agent and Foreign-Government Lobbying
Individuals or organizations materially acting under the direction or control of a foreign government to influence U.S. policy should be required to disclose that relationship.
Ordinary Americans do not become foreign agents merely because their opinions happen to align with another country.
The law should focus on actual direction, financing, agency, and concealed influence.
Congressional Attendance and Duty
Members of Congress should have transparent attendance records for votes, committee hearings, and core legislative responsibilities.
Chronic unexcused absence may result in loss of committee positions, salary consequences where constitutionally permissible, or formal disciplinary proceedings.
Legitimate illness, military duty, family emergencies, and official government responsibilities should be protected.
Judges and Serious Dereliction
Judges should not become personally liable simply because a released defendant later commits another crime.
However, judges who intentionally violate mandatory law, act corruptly, accept bribes, falsify findings, or knowingly disregard nondiscretionary safety requirements may face discipline, removal, or prosecution where legally appropriate.
Political Dereliction of Mandatory Duties
Political disagreement should not be criminalized.
However, where a law or constitutional provision imposes a clear nondiscretionary duty, an official who knowingly refuses that duty without lawful justification may face removal, discipline, or criminal consequences where serious harm results.
Functional Exceptions Must Be Justified
Different legal treatment may be appropriate where an objective difference makes it reasonably necessary.
Examples may include:
children;
people with disabilities;
military servicemembers;
diplomats;
law-enforcement officers performing lawful duties;
judges exercising legitimate judicial functions.
Such distinctions must be based on genuine differences in:
duty;
age;
legal capacity;
vulnerability;
risk;
constitutional function;
public responsibility.
They should not exist simply to benefit a favored class.
Narrowly Tailored Exceptions
Any special legal protection, immunity, authority, benefit, or restriction should be:
clearly defined;
publicly justified;
no broader than necessary;
regularly reviewed;
subject to oversight.
An exception created for one legitimate purpose should not become general immunity from unrelated laws.
Equal-Law Test
Major legislation and regulations should be reviewed using the following questions:
Does the rule apply equally to similarly situated people?
If not, what objective difference justifies the distinction?
Is the distinction actually necessary?
Is the exception narrowly tailored?
Could the same rule be defended if a political opponent benefited from it?
Does the policy create a privileged class that may violate rules ordinary people must follow?
Does greater government authority come with proportionately greater accountability?
Is there a meaningful process to challenge abuse of the exception?
Implementation and Enforcement
Covered Financial Interests
Covered federal officials must stop purchasing or selling individual stocks, options, and other securities tied to a single company upon taking office. Existing covered assets must be sold, transferred to a qualified blind trust, or otherwise brought into compliance within 90 days. Broad diversified funds, Treasury securities, and other investments that do not permit selection of individual companies remain permitted. Substantially equivalent rules apply to spouses and dependent children when needed to prevent circumvention.
Disclosure and Independent Review
Covered transactions and trust arrangements must be reported to an independent ethics office within 15 days and published in a searchable format after protected personal information is removed. The ethics office must issue written compliance decisions, conduct annual audits, and provide an appeal process for disputed classifications.
Penalties
A knowing violation requires disgorgement of the financial benefit and a civil penalty of at least three times the gain or loss avoided. Repeated or concealed violations may result in removal from committee or supervisory assignments, additional civil penalties, and referral for criminal investigation when bribery, false statements, obstruction, or use of material nonpublic information is involved.
Classification and Settlement Review
An Inspector General, court, or other authorized independent reviewer must be able to examine a claim that classification or confidentiality was used to conceal illegality or misconduct. A protected reporting channel must be available to whistleblowers. Final taxpayer-funded settlements must publish the amount, agency, general claim category, and whether misconduct was substantiated, while protecting victims, minors, classified information, and active investigations.
PROPOSED / DRAFT — EQUAL JUSTICE FOR PEOPLE IN AUTHORITY
Business executives, elected officials, law-enforcement officers, regulators, and other people in positions of authority should face the same criminal definitions, charging standards, defenses, due process, sentencing factors, and punishment as an average person accused of the same conduct under comparable circumstances.
Status, wealth, employment, political affiliation, or institutional influence must not produce special leniency or selective prosecution. Public position also must not justify harsher treatment unless abuse of authority is a specifically defined element or sentencing factor established by law.
Cases involving powerful officials should use transparent recusal rules, independent investigation where conflicts exist, evidence-preservation requirements, and written explanations for major charging or declination decisions consistent with legitimate privacy and investigative needs.
Related policies: Government Transparency, Public Records & Duty of Candor; Campaign Finance, Lobbying & Political Influence; Regulatory Reform & Administrative Due Process; Law Enforcement.
Status: Proposed / Draft — not yet formally adopted.
Originally published: August 24, 2026.
Last updated: October 4, 2026.
Version: Draft 0.8.