Feature
Developing and enforcing conflict of interest policies is no simple task for anti-corruption advocates and ethics officials alike. Archon Fung and Dennis Thompson help to better understand the problem and examine when risk is underestimated and when it is overestimated.
The federal government’s vast ethics bureaucracy, led by the Office of Government Ethics, is charged with ferreting out and controlling conflicts of interest amongst millions of federal civil servants, political appointees, and contractors. Yet by most indicators, such conflicts remain embedded among the nearly three million-strong federal workforce.
Conflict of interest allegations leveled against presidents, Supreme Court justices, and congressional leaders continue to demonstrate the challenges to stamping out the perception that public officials are unduly influenced, according to Archon Fung and Dennis Thompson, writing in a recent article published in the journal Governance. “Conflicts of interest compromise not just integrity and competence but democracy itself,” they write. “Democratic processes importantly determine the public interest. Democracy requires officials to exercise their judgment to advance that public interest.”
As conflicts of interest take even larger public and political prominence, Fung and Thompson lay out misconceptions and mistakes they argue often underplay the risks of such conflict. The pair cite what they term the “honesty claim,” that those who may have a conflict of interest are inherently honest in their intentions, conflicts aside, as one such misconception. As an example, they reference claims made by allies of former President Donald Trump that his intermingling of official and private business interests while he was in the White House was of no consequence because of his underlying integrity and honesty.
In a similar vein, Fung and Thompson point to “motive denial” as another attempt to deflect charges of conflict of interest. They reference allegations that Hillary Clinton conducted her official duties as Secretary of State while also participating in meetings regarding her own family foundation, which had previously received donations from foreign governments.
Clinton, when pressed about potential conflicts raised by her work with the foundation, responded that she had always been honest in her dealings and was guided by her work on behalf of the American people as secretary of state. But according to Fung and Thompson’s framework, Clinton’s honesty defense doesn’t clear the bar. “[O]fficials may deceive themselves about their motives. But the motive denial asks even more of the public than the honesty defense.”
While disclosure can be a useful corrective, it will often be insufficient.Archon Fung and Dennis Thompson
Authors, Conflict of interest in government: Avoiding ethical and conceptual mistakes
Transparency, an increasingly used remedy to help address conflicts of interest in government, is often lauded by reformers as a means for citizens to better hold public officials accountable. Yet it is too often held out as a panacea for addressing conflicts of interest. “While disclosure can be a useful corrective, it will often be insufficient,” Fung and Thompson write. Transparency information, “may be publicly available but unnoticed,” they write. “Electoral security may shield officials from corrective pressure; and officials may respond by deceiving rather than rectifying.”
Yet, the pair argue that mistakes can even overplay the risks of conflict. “They [overzealous policies] can have the effect of discrediting legitimate regulation and provoke backlash against concerns about conflict of interest. The pair point to the recent story of an educational economist barred from working on federal student loan policy because she, like tens of millions of other Americans, had outstanding student loan debt. They argue that overly cumbersome rules enacted in response to certain perceived conflicts could discourage capable individuals from entering public service.
Ultimately, Fung and Thompson argue, understanding these mistakes and misconceptions about conflicts of interest is important for maintaining citizen trust in government. “Conflict of interest is a chronic condition that needs to be correctly identified and effectively managed. That is more likely when officials and citizens avoid the mistakes we have described above.”
Podcast
What does it take to stand up for what you believe in when your personal safety, security and even liberty are at stake? Ami Fields-Meyer, a political strategist and former senior policy advisor in the Biden-Harris White House, joins Terms of Engagement hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to speak about speaking out in tumultuous times.
Podcast
Thomas Hicks, who was fired as head of the federal Election Assistance Commission on July 9 when President Donald Trump dismissed all three serving commissioners, joins Terms of Engagement to discuss what the agency does and what the move might mean for the upcoming midterms and future elections.
Feature
For Marcus Board Jr., democracy has never been just an academic subject—it has always been about people. As a 2025-2027 Democracy Visiting Fellow at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School, the Howard University political scientist explores how scholarship and community practice can work together to strengthen democracy.
In this conversation, Board reflects on the experiences, ideas, and relationships that have shaped his work.
Feature
Books, reports, and articles exploring the front lines of American politics and democracy, as featured on the Terms of Engagement podcast.
Feature
Tova Wang, director of research projects in democratic practice at the Ash Center, shares her top picks for summer reads focused on making democracy more resilient, responsive, and inclusive.
Commentary
Allen Lab Fellow Tyler Fisher examines the untapped potential of city charters as a vehicle for deliberative democracy, arguing that advocates should work to embed tools like citizen assemblies, participatory budgeting, and town meetings directly into the governing architecture of cities, institutionalizing deliberative democracy one municipality at a time.
