On October 16, 2025, a political storm erupted in Washington, D.C., as a group of Democratic senators accused the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of potentially violating the Hatch Act—a federal law designed to keep politics out of government operations. At the center of the controversy is a roughly 30-second video featuring DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, which was distributed to airports across the country with a request to play it for passengers. In the video, Noem squarely blames Democrats in Congress for the ongoing government shutdown, a move that has drawn sharp rebukes and prompted calls for a formal investigation.
The government shutdown, which began on October 1, 2025, has left many federal employees in limbo. Essential workers, such as Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents and air traffic controllers, have been required to work without pay, while others have been furloughed. The tension in airports has been palpable, with some TSA staff reportedly calling out sick, adding to delays and frustrations for travelers nationwide. According to ABC News, Noem’s video said, “It is TSA’s top priority to ensure that travelers have the most pleasant, efficient, and safe air travel security experience possible. It is a simple statement of fact that Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the federal government, and because of this, most of our TSA employees are working without pay. It’s unfortunate our workforce has been put in this position due to political gamesmanship. Our hope is that Democrats will soon recognize the importance of opening the government.”
The video’s pointed message did not go unnoticed. Seventeen Democratic senators, led by Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal and Rhode Island’s Jack Reed, swiftly penned a letter to Secretary Noem and the DHS, demanding the immediate removal of the video from all TSA checkpoints and an end to what they described as the illegal use of federal funds for partisan political messaging. Their letter, as reported by NPR and CNN, cited a section of the Anti-Lobbying Act and stated, “This appears to be a flagrant violation of Sec. 715, which states 'No part of any funds appropriated in this or any other act shall be used by an agency of the executive to branch for the preparation, distribution or use of any film presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.'”
The senators’ concerns hinge on the Hatch Act, a law passed in 1939 and colloquially known as “An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities.” The Hatch Act limits the political activities of federal civilian employees and certain state and local government workers involved in federally funded programs. As outlined by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the law’s purpose is “to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.” Violations can result in severe disciplinary actions, including removal from federal service, suspension without pay, debarment from federal employment for up to five years, demotion, or even a civil penalty of up to $1,000.
Legal experts have weighed in on the controversy, suggesting the DHS may have crossed a line. Stanley Brand, a professor at Penn State Dickinson Law, told NPR, “Noem’s video seems like a blatant use of political messaging in a forum and by somebody who probably shouldn't be doing it.” John Berry, a lawyer with experience in Hatch Act cases, told CNN that Noem, in her official capacity, is covered by the Act, especially if government resources were used to film the video.
Major airports across the country have responded with caution—if not outright resistance. According to CBS News and the Texas Tribune, facilities such as LaGuardia, Newark Liberty, John F. Kennedy, Charlotte Douglas International, Seattle-Tacoma, San Francisco International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta, Chicago O’Hare, Phoenix International, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles International, Hollywood Burbank, Dallas Fort Worth, Dallas Love Field, Corpus Christi, San Antonio, Denver International, Harry Reid International in Las Vegas, and Westchester all declined to play the DHS video. Their reasoning was consistent: airport policies prohibit political content, and many sought to maintain a neutral environment. The Port Authority, which oversees New York’s major airports, stated, “Our longstanding policies prevent airing of politically partisan messages at our facilities, so airports are not airing the video on airport-controlled screens.”
Still, not every airport was able to sidestep the federal request. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in Michigan, Bismarck Airport in North Dakota, Sawyer Regional Airport in Michigan, and El Paso International Airport in Texas reported that the video was being shown on screens controlled by the TSA—outside the direct purview of airport management. A spokesperson for Detroit Wayne Airport told the Detroit Free Press that they had requested TSA to stop playing the video, emphasizing that the decision was not theirs to make.
Senator Maria Cantwell, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, sent a similar letter to the Office of Special Counsel, demanding a thorough investigation into the video and its compliance with federal law. Cantwell wrote, “When viewed in its totality, Secretary Noem’s video can only be reasonably interpreted as a partisan message intended to misleadingly malign the Trump Administration’s political opponents, convince Americans to blame 'Democrats in Congress' for the ongoing government shutdown, and influence their future votes—all while omitting the fact that Republicans currently control the White House, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House of Representatives.”
The senators have also requested detailed information on the funding used to produce and distribute the video, including the cost, who approved the funds, whether anyone from the Trump administration was involved, and if any outside contractors played a role. Their aim is to determine if any federal laws were violated or public funds misused.
This incident is not isolated. According to Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, several complaints have been filed over partisan messaging appearing on government websites and in agency newsletters during the shutdown. Some auto-generated email responses from federal employees have also blamed Democrats for the funding impasse. These broader concerns have only heightened scrutiny of the administration’s conduct during the shutdown.
The Hatch Act has a complicated history of enforcement. While the OSC investigates alleged violations and can bring cases before the Merit Systems Protection Board, enforcement can be inconsistent, especially for high-ranking officials. For example, in 2019, the OSC recommended President Trump fire Kellyanne Conway for repeated Hatch Act violations—a recommendation the White House ignored. Similarly, in 2020, the OSC reported that Peter Navarro, then assistant to the President, violated the Act for comments made about political candidates, but no disciplinary action followed.
Exemptions under the Hatch Act do exist, notably for White House-commissioned officers and Senate-confirmed presidential appointees. If such officials violate the Act, the OSC submits its findings to the President, who decides on disciplinary action. In Noem’s case, if found in violation, any sanctions would ultimately be up to President Trump, who has echoed her criticisms of Democrats throughout the shutdown.
As the shutdown drags on and the political blame game intensifies, the dispute over the DHS video underscores the challenges of keeping government functions free from partisan influence. Whether the OSC will take up the senators’ call for an investigation—and what consequences might follow—remains to be seen. For now, the episode serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between public service and political messaging at the highest levels of government.
