INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY I22INV00033 DATE: AUGUST 7, 2023 

1050 First Street NE Washington, DC 20463 | www.fec.gov/oig

Allegations of Ethics Violations by an FEC Commissioner

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this 

investigation after a media report concerning FEC Commissioner James “Trey” Trainor III’s 

appearance at an event in Texas where he was allegedly billed as a member of the “Trump 

Elections Team.” 

Specifically, a June 30, 2022 article reported Commissioner Trainor’s appearance at a 

November 29, 2021, event (herein referred to as the “Denton County event” or “the event”) 

organized by the Denton County Republican Party that billed him as a member of the “Trump 

Elections Team.”1

 The article cited campaign finance experts, including a former FEC 

Commissioner, who expressed concerns about Commissioner Trainor’s appearance at the event. 

They further questioned whether Commissioner Trainor should have recused himself from 

adjudicating matters involving former President Donald Trump in light of his appearance at the 

event (as a purported member of the “Trump Elections Team”) and his prior work for the Trump 

2016 campaign.2

In light of the foregoing, the OIG inquired into the four areas below:

• Review of the relevant ethical standards concerning Commissioner conduct 

• Review of the ethics briefs provided to Commissioners, including Commissioner 

Trainor’s advisement by FEC ethics officials

• Commissioner Trainor’s participation in matters involving the Trump 2016 campaign 

and related entities

• Commissioner Trainor’s participation in the Denton County event 

 The OIG identified the following standards of conduct as relevant to the facts of this case: 

1. 5 CFR § 2635.502(a) provides that federal employees (including Commissioners) are 

subject to the general standard concerning apparent or actual bias. It provides that employees 

should not participate in official matters that involve, among others, former employers or clients. 

1 A Trump-appointed Official Who Gets an Important Vote on Whether Trump Broke Election Laws Spoke at a Texas 

GOP Event Where He was Billed as a Part of the “Trump Elections Team,” Insider, 30 June 2022, 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-election-integrity-trey-trainor-federal-election-commission-fec-2022-6

2 As used herein, “Trump 2016 campaign” refers to Make America Great Again PAC (f/k/a Donald J. Trump for 

President, Inc.).
2

However, this prohibition only applies to those persons “...for whom the employee has, within 

the last year, served as officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, 

contractor or employee[.]” (Emphasis added). 

2. Executive Order 13770, dated January 28, 2017, required presidential appointees to 

agree to a similar prohibition against participating in a matter “involving specific parties that is 

directly and substantially related to [a] former employer or former clients, including regulations 

and contracts.” However, that order similarly limited its application to employers or clients for 

whom the appointee worked in the two years prior to his or her appointment and extends the 

prohibition to two years from the date of appointment.3

3. 5 CFR § 2635.807, Teaching, speaking and writing, provides that government 

employees “shall not receive compensation from any source other than the Government for 

teaching, speaking or writing that relates to the employee’s official duties.” In addition, the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits Commissioners from “engaging in any other 

business, vocation, or employment[.]” 52 USC § 30106(a)(3).

4. 5 CFR § 2635.101(b)(14) provides that employees shall avoid actions creating the 

appearance of an ethical violation. This provision emphasizes that employees “shall endeavor to 

avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards 

set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these 

standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person 

with knowledge of the relevant facts.”

This investigation found the following:

1. Commissioner Trainor did not participate in this investigation. After initially referring 

the OIG to his legal counsel, neither Commissioner Trainor nor his counsel responded to 

numerous attempts over the course of several months by the OIG to schedule an interview. His 

lack of participation impeded the OIG’s efforts to gather relevant evidence and resulted in 

uncertainty concerning the conclusions in this investigation. It was also inconsistent with 

Commission guidance regarding cooperation with the OIG, specifically, a March 25, 2022 email 

sent to FEC staff by a prior Commission Chair directing agency personnel to cooperate with OIG 

engagements, including investigations.4

 Although that direction may not be binding upon other 

commissioners, Commissioner Trainor’s non-participation in this investigation nevertheless 

reflects inconsistency with the standard expected of other agency personnel. 

2. The FEC Office of General Counsel provides Commissioners with detailed ethics 

briefings concerning standards of conduct, including the foregoing standards. Commissioner 

Trainor, like other Commissioners, received this briefing and executed an ethics agreement to 

3 Executive Order 13770 was later rescinded on January 20, 2021 by then-President Trump. 

4 On March 25, 2022, then-Chair Allen Dickerson sent an email to all FEC staff stating, “Under the terms of The 

Inspector General Act of 1978 (the IG Act), as amended, the agency and its employees have a duty to cooperate with 

OIG. Among other provisions, the IG Act authorizes the Inspector General to have timely access to all records, 

reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material available to the agency relating to its 

programs and operations.”
3

detail the steps he would take to avoid conflicts of interest as a Commissioner. Commissioner 

Trainor notified the Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) via a letter on March 3, 2020, 

that he was required to sign the ethics pledge provided in Executive Order 13770. He signed the 

pledge on May 20, 2020. 

3. Commissioner Trainor followed up with a written notification via memorandum on July 

6, 2020, to the DAEO outlining his recusal obligations. The memorandum included a list of 

entities in which Commissioner Trainor, unless authorized to participate, was disqualified from 

participation. This disqualification included any particular matter in which an entity was or 

represented a party. The OIG was unable to conclude with certainty whether Commissioner 

Trainor complied with the relevant ethical standards concerning participation in matters 

involving the Trump 2016 campaign and related entities due to his lack of participation in this 

investigation.

4. Agency ethics officials previously advised Commissioner Trainor that during his tenure 

as a Commissioner, he should recuse himself from any matter that was at that time open before 

the Commission involving the Trump 2016 campaign, if he had previously represented the 

Trump campaign before the Commission in those matters. Commissioner Trainor stated on his 

ethics agreement that to his knowledge, there were no pending particular matters involving 

specific parties in which he represented a client to or before the Commission. 

5. The OIG reviewed Commissioner Trainor’s participation in FEC matters involving 

relevant entities and identified no violations, as his participation was outside the one and 

two-year periods provided in, respectively, 5 CFR § 2635.502 and Executive Order 13770. The 

review identified 39 matters before the Commission in which the Trump 2016 campaign was a 

respondent. Commissioner Trainor participated in 37 of the 39 matters involving the Trump 

2016 campaign and recused in two. The OIG identified two additional matters involving a 

Trump-related entity where Commissioner Trainor also recused. However, without 

Commissioner Trainor’s participation, the OIG could not confirm his reasons for recusal, nor 

could we identify all relevant entities and instances in which he additionally may have been 

required to recuse to determine whether he complied with the relevant standards.

6. The OIG was unable to obtain all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding 

Commissioner Trainor’s role in the Denton County event due to his non-participation in this 

investigation. Based on public reporting and other available evidence (including testimony of 

other participants), we identified no violations of relevant ethical standards, including 

52 USC § 30106(a)(3), 5 CFR § 2635.807, 5 CFR § 2635.502(a), and Executive Order 13770. It 

is understandable that outside observers might question his participation in an event hosted by a 

political party. However, Commissioners are appointed, in part, on the basis of partisan 

affiliation (see 52 USC § 30106) and frequently speak in public.5

 

7. Moreover, to an outside observer, Commissioner Trainor’s appearance at an event 

hosted by a political party and identified as a member of the “Trump Elections Team” might 

create an appearance of an ethical violation under 5 CFR Chapter 2635. However, per 5 CFR

5 To the extent conduct may violate the Hatch Act, the OIG refers allegations of improper partisan political activity to 

the Office of Special Counsel, which has authority over such matters. See 5 USC § 7321, et seq. 
4 

§ 2635.101(b)(14), “[w]hether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or 

these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable 

person with knowledge of the relevant facts” (emphasis added). In this instance, knowledge of 

the relevant facts (i.e., that the misidentification was an error, that Commissioner Trainor was not 

responsible for the error, and that Commissioner Trainor did not speak on behalf of the Trump 

campaign at the event) undermines any appearance of impropriety. 

 Accordingly, the OIG closed this matter with no recommendations for the Commission or 

FEC management.

FEC OIG INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY I22INV00033: Allegations of Ethics Violations by an FEC 

Commissioner