During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump proposed a series of ethics measures. These included extending "cooling off" periods on lobbying the government after government service; "instituting a five-year ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress and their staffs"; expanding the definition of a lobbyist to cover former government officials who engage in strategic consulting; and issuing a "lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government." On January 28, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13770 addressing aspects of his campaign proposal on ethics and lobbying. E.O. 13770 created an ethics pledge for executive branch appointees, provided for the administration and enforcement of the pledge, and revoked President Barack Obama's executive order ethics pledge that covered his Administration (E.O. 13490). President Trump's executive order shares some features with President Obama's executive order and a previous executive order issued by President Bill Clinton. Since the basis of the ethics pledges is to regulate public and executive branch interactions, this report focuses on the main features of the ethics pledges—lobbying, ethics in government, and the "revolving door"—to explore the basis and current practices for these interactions. The report begins with an overview of the relationship between the public and the executive branch, including the use of laws, executive orders, and other guidance and Administration policy to regulate interactions. A brief summary of executive orders is then provided, including a side-by-side analysis of ethics pledges from the Clinton, Obama, and Trump Administrations. This analysis is followed by observations of the similarities and differences among the three ethics pledges. Finally, options for change are evaluated. The right of citizens to petition the government has long been considered a protected and fundamental aspect of the citizen-government dynamic. Today, interactions between the private citizens and the executive branch take many forms. Some interactions fit the traditional petition model, in which private citizens or lobbyists contact and request information or action from Congress or the executive branch. Other interactions are more complicated and can involve private citizens becoming government employees or government employees leaving the government to take private sector jobs in the area they covered for the government. Also called the "revolving door," these movements can take on many forms, including former federal employees lobbying for a domestic or foreign client or engaging in policy work, or individuals entering government to engage in regulatory activity. Some have argued that the revolving door can lead to undue influence by the private sector over governmental activities or vice-versa. Others have argued that government employees need to be restricted with regard to such activities to ensure their "neutral competence" and that they represent the interests of the government above all else. Proponents of the revolving door, however, observe that the promise of future private-sector employment could potentially improve the quality of candidates applying for government jobs. They argue that direct connections to government officials are important, but a close relationship is not necessarily what drives lobbying. Some believe that government employees contemplating a move to the private sector will be friendly to industry interests at the expense of the public interest. On the other hand, studies have shown that regulators instead may engage in more aggressive actions against industry and do not favor industry, regardless of their job prospects. Another factor observers raise is that the flow of personnel between the public and private sectors may increase the knowledge base of both sectors. Regulating interactions between the public and the government may be carried out through law, executive order, Administration policy—including regulations issued by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) —or a combination of all three. Administration policy has generally sought to require disclosure of activities or place restrictions on current or former government employees rather than ban certain activities or contacts. For example, in 2009 the Obama Administration issued a memorandum outlining rules for executive branch employees' contact with lobbyists about American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds. This guidance did not restrict a lobbyist's ability to contact the government, but it did require agency employees to log conversations with lobbyists and the agencies to post those logs on an agency website. In most cases, laws, executive orders, and other Administration guidance generally aim to regulate the relationship between governmental and nongovernmental actors. Several laws address the relationship between governmental and nongovernmental actors. These include lobbying laws, ethics laws, and revolving door laws. This section provides a brief overview of these three sets of laws and how they generally apply to executive branch officials. The first lobbying law was the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (Title III, the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act [RLA]). The RLA applied to "any person who shall engage himself for pay or for any consideration for the purpose of attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by the Congress of the United States." The RLA was silent on lobbying efforts aimed toward the executive branch. Over time, the RLA was repealed and replaced by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA), as amended by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA). Under the LDA as amended, individuals register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate and disclose their activities, if they are (1) employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation, (2) for services that include more than one lobbying contact[;] and his or her lobbying activities for that client must amount to 20 percent or more of the time that the individual expends on services to that client over a six-month period. Additionally, the LDA refined thresholds and definitions of lobbying activities, changed the frequency of reporting for registered lobbyists and lobbying firms, required additional disclosures, created new semiannual reports on campaign contributions, and added disclosure requirements for coalitions and associations. Starting in at least 1961, standards of ethical conduct for executive branch employees were set by a series of executive orders. Following the Watergate scandal and President Nixon's resignation, interest in a government-wide ethics law increased. These efforts culminated with the enactment of the Ethics in Government Act in 1978. Drafted to "preserve and promote the accountability and integrity of public officials and of the institutions of the Federal Government," the act codified many of the provisions included in past executive orders. The Ethics in Government Act required financial disclosure by high-ranking government officials, including Members of Congress and senior judicial branch officials; amended Title 18 United States Code to set restrictions on postemployment activities of certain executive branch officers and employees; and created the Office of Government Ethics to provide standardized regulations, review and monitor financial disclosure statements, and educate and inform executive branch employees of ethics laws and regulations. In 1989, amendments to the Ethics in Government Act were enacted. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 included "the extension of post-employment 'revolving door' restrictions to the legislative branch; ... limitations on outside earned income for higher-salaried, noncareer employees in all branches; increased financial disclosure; ... and limitation on gifts and travel." Several laws govern the movement of federal employees from the government to the private sector and vice versa. Most prominently, 18 U.S.C. §207 provides a series of postemployment restrictions on "representational" activities for executive branch personnel when they leave government service, including a lifetime ban on "switching sides" on a matter involving specific parties on which any executive branch employee had worked personally and substantially while with the government; a two-year ban on "switching sides" on a somewhat broader range of matters which were under the employee's official responsibility; a one-year restriction on assisting others on certain trade or treaty negotiations; a one-year "cooling off" period for certain "senior" officials, barring representational communications before their former departments or agencies; a two-year "cooling off" period for "very senior" officials, barring representational communications to and attempts to influence certain other high-ranking officials in the entire executive branch of government; and a one-year ban on certain officials in performing some representational or advisory activities for foreign governments or foreign political parties. Historically, Presidents have used a variety of written mechanisms to direct executive branch agencies and implement policy. The most widely known written statements are executive orders. While no formal definition of executive order exists, a widely accepted description was offered in a 1957 House Government Operations Committee report. It stated, Executive orders ... are directives or actions by the President. When they are founded on the authority of the President derived from the Constitution or statute, they may have the force and effect of law. There is no law or even Executive order which attempts to define the term "Executive order".... Executive orders are generally directed to, and govern actions by, Government officials and agencies. Historically, executive orders have been used for both major matters (e.g., the Louisiana Purchase, emancipation of the slaves during the Civil War, the annexation of Texas) and minor changes to administrative policy (e.g., mold policies, instructions on agency decisionmaking). Since the 1960s, several Presidents have issued executive orders to outline ethical requirements and provide implementation guidance to executive branch employees. The initial issuance of an ethics executive order by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 roughly mirrors increased congressional interest in ethics, including the adoption of a general Code of Ethics for Government Service in the 85 th Congress (1957-1958); investigations of alleged misconduct by Bobby Baker, secretary to the Senate majority, and by Representative Adam Clayton Powell Jr. in the 1960s; and the creation of the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct (now the Select Committee on Ethics) in 1964, and the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now the House Ethics Committee) in 1967. As the first ethics executive order, President Kennedy's 1961 executive order (E.O. 10939) included provisions for behavior by government employees that would be included in other ethics executive orders and ultimately be reflected in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. In the years after President Kennedy's Administration, other Presidents also issued executive ethics orders. These executive orders were issued by President Lyndon Johnson, President Richard Nixon, President Ronald Reagan, and President George H. W. Bush. None, however, contained a pledge that executive branch appointees were required to sign. Since the enactment of the Ethics in Government Act of 1989, three Presidents have issued ethics executive orders, each containing an "ethics pledge" that appointees were required to sign upon taking office. Those orders, discussed in detail below under " Executive Branch Ethics Pledges ," were issued by Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump. In addition to executive orders, the President can direct executive branch action by issuing a memorandum or guidance. Often issued through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this guidance can provide additional direction to executive branch employees on a wide range of subjects. In the context of ethics and lobbying, guidance has been utilized to regulate contact between lobbyists and executive branch employees for certain programs. For example, President George W. Bush issued a memorandum on January 20, 2001, his first day in office, instructing the heads of executive agencies and departments to "ensure that all personnel within your departments and agencies are familiar with, and faithfully observe, applicable ethics law and regulations.... " The memorandum also included a restatement of provisions from the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, a publication issued by the Office of Government Ethics and codified at 5 C.F.R. Part 2635. Similarly, during the Obama Administration, Treasury Department and OMB guidance provided instructions to federal employees about their interactions with lobbyists on two acts: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). For EESA, guidance was designed to combat potential lobbyist influence on the disbursement of EESA funds, to remove politics from funding decisions, to offer certification to Congress that each investment decision was based "only on investment criteria and the facts of the case," and to provide transparency to the investment process. For the ARRA, all communications between nongovernmental entities and government officials about ARRA funds were required to be documented and posted to an agency-specific ARRA website. Memoranda and guidance such as these are not discussed further in this report, which focuses on executive order ethics pledges. Since the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was enacted, three Presidents have issued an executive order creating an ethics pledge for Administration appointees. They are President Clinton (1993), President Obama (2009), and President Trump (2017). This section provides a brief summary of each ethics pledge. On January 22, 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12834, "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees." Contemporary news reports of the ethics pledge cited campaign promises "to curb influence peddling by former government officials." The ethics pledge included a five-year ban for former federal officials on lobbying any officer or employee of the agency in which they served, a five-year ban on lobbying the Executive Office of the President (EOP) by former EOP employees, a lifetime ban on representing a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and a five-year ban for former government officials who participated in a trade negotiation to advise or represent a foreign government. On December 28, 2000, President Clinton revoked this executive order. On January 21, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13490, "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel." The executive order created an ethics pledge for all executive branch appointments made on or after January 20, 2009, including a ban on accepting gifts from registered lobbyists, a two-year ban on working on particular issues involving a former employer, and a ban on lobbying the Administration after leaving government service. Additionally, the E.O. defined terms included in the pledge; allowed the Director of OMB, in consultation with the counsel to the President, to issue ethics pledge waivers; instructed the heads of executive agencies to consult with the Director of the Office of Government Ethics to establish rules of procedure for the administration of the ethics pledge; and authorized the Attorney General to enforce the executive order. In a press release summarizing the executive order, the Obama White House explained the ethics pledge and the importance of following ethics and lobbying rules: The American people ... deserve more than simply an assurance that those coming to Washington will serve their interests. They deserve to know that there are rules on the books to keep it that way. In the Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel, the President, first, prohibits executive branch employees from accepting gifts from lobbyists. Second, he closes the revolving door that allows government officials to move to and from private sector jobs in ways that give that sector undue influence over government. Third, he requires that government hiring be based upon qualifications, competence and experience, not political connections. He has ordered every one of his appointees to sign a pledge abiding by these tough new rules as a downpayment on the change he has promised to bring to Washington. On January 28, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13770, "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees." The executive order revoked President Obama's executive order (E.O. 13490) and created a new ethics pledge that shared many features to those previously issued by President Clinton and President Obama. The E.O. required all appointees to observe a two-year ban on "particular matters" related to former employers, a two-year ban for former lobbyists on involvement on matters on which he or she had lobbied, and a five-year ban on lobbying the government for appointees who leave government service. Additionally, the ethics pledge defined relevant terms, provided for a waiver process, and outlined the pledge's administration and enforcement. In many ways, President Trump's ethics pledge shares features with those issued by President Clinton and President Obama. For example, all three provided for restrictions, in addition to those imposed by law, on the activities of certain appointees as they enter and exit government service. The three ethics pledges, however, also have many differences. President Clinton's ethics pledge contained provisions prohibiting pledge signers from becoming foreign agents or engaging in trade negotiations following government employment. President Obama's ethics pledge contained a lobbyist gift ban, and President Clinton's and President Trump's contain a five-year lobbying ban. A full side-by-side comparison of President Clinton's, President Obama's, and President Trump's executive order ethics pledges can be found in the Appendix . Even though some provisions of the ethics pledges are similar, each pledge also provides the Administration's interpretation of the relationship between government employees and lobbyists, and how employees entering and exiting government service should behave vis-a-vis the Administration. The following section provides observations about the major similarities and differences between President Clinton's, President Obama's, and President Trump's ethics pledges in three areas: the "revolving door" (i.e., employees entering and exiting government service), definition of lobbying, and representation of foreign principals. Each ethics pledge puts additional restrictions on appointees entering and exiting government service. These include general restrictions for all appointees and specific restrictions for lobbyists. Figure 1 summarizes the executive order restrictions for appointees entering and exiting government service. As Figure 1 shows, two of the three ethics pledges include provisions for appointees entering government service and all three address employees exiting the government. For appointees entering government service, the Obama and Trump Administrations' ethics pledges include a two-year ban for appointees entering government from being involved with their previous employer on "any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to" former employers or clients. Additionally, President Obama and President Trump both included additional restrictions on lobbyists entering government service. Both ethics pledges provided that registered lobbyists be prohibited from being involved in "any particular matter on which ..." he or she lobbied in the two years prior to appointment. President Clinton's ethics pledge did not contain a provision on appointees entering government service. For appointees exiting government service, all three ethics pledges contained provisions restricting future activities. President Clinton's ethics pledge included a lifetime ban on representing a foreign principal, as defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA); and a five-year ban on lobbying executive agencies that the appointee had a "personal and substantial responsibility" over. Additionally, President Clinton's ethics pledge also restricted former executive branch trade negotiators from representing a foreign principal for five years after the end of his or her government service. President Obama's and President Trump's ethics pledges both included language to extend statutory "cooling off" periods from one year to two years for those exiting the executive branch. Additionally, both the Obama and Trump ethics pledges included Administration-long bans on leaving the government to lobby certain executive branch officials. President Trump's ethics pledge also included a five-year ban for senior appointees from lobbying any executive agency in which the appointee served, and an agreement not to "engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party that would require registration under FARA." As Figure 2 shows, several components are shared across the three ethics pledges. For example, all three ethics pledges included a ban on leaving the Administration to become a lobbyist. President Clinton and President Trump included a ban on former appointees becoming a foreign agent, and President Clinton included a ban on participating in trade negotiations after leaving government service. All three executive order ethics pledges include additional restrictions on lobbyists. While the concept behind the additional restrictions appears to be similar—prohibiting individuals from lobbying on particular matters they worked on in the public or private sector—the language used to define the types of behavior is different. The Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) defines a lobbyist as any individual who is employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services that include more than one lobbying contact, other than an individual whose lobbying activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client over a 3-month period. Additionally, the LDA further defines lobbying contacts and lobbying activities. A lobbying contact is any oral or written communication (including an electronic communication) to a covered executive branch official or a covered legislative branch official that is made on behalf of a client with regard to- (i) the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal legislation (including legislative proposals); (ii) the formulation, modification, or adoption of a Federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or any other program, policy, or position of the United States Government; (iii) the administration or execution of a Federal program or policy (including the negotiation, award, or administration of a Federal contract, grant, loan, permit, or license); or (iv) the nomination or confirmation of a person for a position subject to confirmation by the Senate. Lobbying activity means lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation and planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination with the lobbying activities of others. For the purpose of their ethics pledges, President Clinton and President Obama both defined lobbying as "knowingly communicat[ing] to or appear[ing] before any officer or employee of any executive agency on behalf of another with the intent to influence official action.... " This definition of lobbying approximates the overall LDA definition of lobbying and lobbying contact. Thus, former appointees were restricted from making contacts with covered officials after their governmental service. President Trump's ethics pledge arguably uses a broader definition of lobbying. President Trump's lobbying ban prohibits former appointees from engaging "in lobbying activities with respect to any covered executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration." President Trump's executive order defines lobbying activities using LDA's definition, but provides exemptions for communication or appearances in regard to "a judicial proceeding; a criminal or civil law enforcement inquiry, investigation, or proceeding; or any agency process for rulemaking, adjudication, or licensing.... " The difference between lobbying contacts and lobbying activities is nuanced. Generally, lobbying contacts require an individual to engage in oral or written communication with a covered official. While there are exemptions to these communications (e.g., communications made by a media organization representative in gathering and disseminating news), in order to be considered a registered lobbyist, contact must occur between an individual being paid to represent others and a covered official. Lobbying activities, on the other hand, include both lobbying contacts and the support of those contacts by people who do not communicate directly with a covered official. Therefore, using lobbying activities to define lobbying is arguably more expansive than using lobbying contacts because individuals who never call or meet with covered officials (but assist federally registered lobbyists in preparing for those communications) would likely fall under President Trump's ethics pledge lobbying ban. Individuals supporting registered lobbyists, but not making contact with covered officials, were not included in President Clinton's or President Obama's ethics pledge. The shift between lobbying contact and lobbying activities to define lobbying now potentially includes the activities of a group of individuals often referred to as "shadow lobbyists." A "shadow lobbyist" is an individual who engages in some lobbying activities but does not necessarily strictly meet all of the requirements for registration as a lobbyist: makes more than one lobbying contact per quarter, is compensated for making contacts with covered officials, and spends more than 20% of his or her time on lobbying activities. As described by political scientist Timothy LaPira, a shadow lobbyist is ... any professional who is paid to challenge or defend the policy status quo, to subsidize [sic] policymakers with information, or to closely monitor intricate policy and political developments that are not readily available to the public—or those who offer expertise, knowledge, and access in support of these activities—yet who do not register as lobbyists. Restricting former appointees from engaging in certain types of lobbying activities potentially would extend to individuals who provide "strategic consulting" to lobbying firms or take postgovernment employment in a position that might support registered lobbyists. Traditionally, individuals who support registered lobbyists have not been included in registration and disclosure requirements because they do not make lobbying contacts. Using lobbying activities as the threshold for postemployment restrictions under the ethics pledge could include those individuals who are not directly attempting to influence government decisionmaking. President Clinton's and President Trump's ethics pledges both contained restrictions on former appointees leaving government to represent a foreign principal. For both ethics pledges, the restriction was a prohibition on engaging in activity that would require registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). President Clinton's ethics pledge contained a lifetime ban on "activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party" that would require registration under FARA. President Trump's ethics pledge contains an agreement not to "engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which ... would require registration under FARA." President Obama's ethics pledge did not address foreign agents. Should Congress wish to consider writing into law elements included in the pledges, several options are potentially available. These include codifying ethics pledge provisions; amending revolving door restrictions; amending the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), or both; or taking no immediate action. These options each have advantages and disadvantages for the future relationships between lobbyists and governmental decisionmakers. CRS takes no position on any of the options identified in this report. Should Congress want to make all or part of the executive branch ethics pledges permanent, it could choose to codify the additional restrictions placed on executive branch appointees by President Clinton's, President Obama's, or President Trump's ethics pledges. This might include codifying additional revolving door restrictions as discussed above; incorporating individual provisions (e.g., a lobbying gift ban or restrictions on trade negotiations by former appointees); or adding specific definitions, waivers, or disclosure concepts to federal law. Codifying either the entire ethics pledge(s) or individual sections would have the effect of making those changes permanent, and not subject to being revoked by a future executive order. This could allow for permanent changes to existing ethics and conflict-of-interest provisions. Should action to incorporate ethics-pledge revolving-door restrictions be desired, several options might exist. These could include extending the "cooling-off" period to two years or more, placing a blanket ban on taking certain positions for compensation, and placing a ban on taking certain types of nongovernmental positions. As mentioned above under " The Revolving Door ," current statutory "cooling off" periods for executive branch officials range from a lifetime ban on "switching sides"; to a two-year period for "very senior" officials, and a one-year period for "senior" officials, for certain activities; and a one-year restriction on all "senior" or "very senior" employees representing a foreign government or political party. One option might be to extend the cooling-off period to two years or more. This would match language in all three ethics pledges. Extending the cooling-off period for former appointees to two years, however, could possibly be seen as an unreasonable restriction on postemployment. Alternatively, Congress could reduce or eliminate the cooling-off period. Having a shorter cooling-off period, or eliminating it altogether, might arguably increase the talent pool available both inside and outside the government. Instead of, or in addition to, addressing cooling-off periods, Congress could enact a blanket restriction on the acceptance of certain types of outside employment for the length of an Administration. For example, an individual appointed by the President might be prohibited from accepting certain outside employment until the end of the President's Administration or until the next intervening election (i.e., the President's bid for reelection). Such a policy might encourage executive branch appointees to serve for the length of the President's term before seeking outside employment. Several disadvantages to creating such postemployment restrictions on appointees potentially exist. First, if the restriction covered only the acceptance of private compensation, fees, or other remuneration, it is possible that an appointee could leave the Administration to take an uncompensated position with any private entity. These positions might be advisory in nature and could carry the promise of future compensation after the end of the former appointee's restricted time. If the goal of Congress is to restrict former appointees from becoming registered lobbyists under the LDA or FARA, Congress could amend the LDA or FARA to institute provisions similar to executive branch lobbying restrictions found in President Obama's and President Trump's ethics pledges. Under the LDA, lobbyists must file quarterly disclosure reports with information on their activities and covered officials contacted. Similar requirements exist under FARA for individuals who are representing a foreign principal. Additionally, the LDA, as amended by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, requires federally registered lobbyists to file semiannual reports on certain campaign and presidential library contributions. The disclosure requirements might be further amended to cover program-specific disbursement information. Congress might determine that the current lobbying registration and disclosure provisions, and executive orders, are adequate. Instead of amending the LDA or FARA, or issuing additional or amending existing executive orders, Congress or the President could continue to utilize existing law, or the President could issue executive orders to restrict the activities of current or former Administration officials. Changes within the statutory mission of the implanting officials might be made on an as-needed basis through changes to LDA guidance documents issued by the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate, FARA guidance issued by the Department of Justice, through executive order, or through the issuance of memoranda by the Administration. To provide a comparison of the executive order ethics pledges signed by President Clinton, President Obama, and President Trump, Table A-1 provides a side-by-side analysis of the three ethics pledges, including who was covered, the restrictions placed on covered employees, and the administration and enforcement provisions. In evaluating the three ethics pledges, similar categories were observed. These serve as the main headers of Table A-1 . These include who is covered by the ethics pledge; definitions; wavier provisions; administration; enforcement; and other general provisions, if any.

Summary: On January 28, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13770 on ethics and lobbying. E.O. 13770 created an ethics pledge for executive branch appointees, provided for the administration and enforcement of the pledge, and revoked President Barack Obama's executive order ethics pledge that covered his Administration (E.O. 13490). President Trump's executive order shares some features with President Obama's executive order and a previous executive order issued by President Bill Clinton. Executive order ethics pledges are one of several tools, along with laws and administrative guidance, available to influence the interactions and relationships between the public and the executive branch. The ability of private citizens to contact government officials is protected by the Constitution. As such, the restrictions placed by executive order ethics pledges, laws, and administrative guidance are designed to provide transparency and address enforcement of existing "revolving door" (when federal employees leave government for employment in the private sector) and lobbying laws. The report begins with an overview of the relationship between the public and the executive branch, including the use of laws, executive orders, and other guidance and Administration policy to regulate interactions. A brief summary of recent executive orders is then provided, including a side-by-side analysis of ethics pledges from the Clinton, Obama, and Trump Administrations. This analysis is followed by observations about the similarities and differences among the three pledges. These observations focus on the revolving door restrictions (18 U.S.C. §207), the definition of lobbying used in ethics pledges, and the representation of foreign principals by former executive branch officials. In the context of observations drawn from the ethics pledges, Congress has many options available to potentially address the relationship and contact between the private sector and government employees. These include options to amend revolving door restrictions, amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, and codify the ethics pledge to make executive order additions to existing laws permanent. Additionally, Congress could take no immediate action and maintain current standards.