Is the Revolving Door Sticking?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.17.18
Summary: In a late-breaking amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress adopted the Senate’s amendment and included Section 1045, “Prohibition on Lobbying Activities With Respect to the Department of Defense by Certain Officers of the Armed Forces and Civilian Employees of the Department Within Two Years of Separation from Military Service or Employment with the Department” in the Act. There will now be a two-year preclusion on “engaging in any lobbying activity with respect to the Department of Defense” for retiring O-9 officers (three-star general officers) and above and their civilian counterparts (SES Tier III and above) and a 1-year preclusion on retiring O-7 and O-7 officers (one- and two-star officers) and their civilian counterparts (SES Tier I and II).
The restrictions apply to “[l]obbying contacts and other lobbying activities with covered executive branch officials with respect to the Department of Defense.” The new restrictions apply to lobbying the President, Vice President, their former colleagues at O-7 or above/SES Tier I and above, and certain other influential or policymaking individuals with respect to DoD laws, rules, and regulations as well as to supporting others behind the scenes in their lobbying efforts. There is a broad list of exceptions in the Lobbying Disclosure Act that would permit certain activities; but contractors would be well advised to offer training to their newly separated Department of Defense senior officials and assistance with determining what activities are permissible and impermissible.
When developing training, contractors should draw a distinction between acceptable behind the scenes work that does not involve representation back to the official’s former agency, and impermissible behind-the-scenes activity that could be considered lobbying.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
