Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dropped out of the presidential race and went all in for former President Donald Trump, and the endorsement is already paying off. The New York Times reported Trump is making Kennedy and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat turned independent, honorary co-chairs of his presidential transition team, should he win in November.
In that role, Kennedy will help create the policies and hire the staff for a second Trump administration. Kennedy denied that he gave his endorsement in exchange for a cabinet post or other government position.
“There’s been no commitments,” Kennedy said on Fox News Sunday, Aug. 25. “You know I met with President Trump, with his family, with his close advisors and we just made a general commitment that we’re going to work together.
The Washington Post reported that Kennedy called both Trump and Vice President Harris before he dropped out. He talked to Trump about endorsing him and taking a job in the administration. Now Trump and Kennedy are being accused of breaking federal law.
Attorney Tristan Snell, who prosecuted the Trump University case, posted on X about the endorsement.
“Oh, by the way, it is a FEDERAL CRIME to promise a post in an administration in exchange for a candidate endorsement,” Snell wrote. “So of course convicted felon Donald Trump got RFK Jr. to endorse him.”
X user George Leventhal also said the endorsement was illegal and cited 18 U.S. Code § 600: “Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.”
The section of code states whoever “directly or indirectly, promises any employment, (or) position…to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate…” can face up to one year in prison.
But Duke Law Professor Stuart Benjamin wrote in Reason that promising a position to RFK Jr. is not illegal, and that criminalizing such promises would violate the First Amendment.
He focused on 18 U.S. Code § 599 — “Promise of appointment by candidate.” It was the subject of a 1982 Supreme Court case in which the justices ruled unanimously in favor of a politician who promised voters he would lower his salary.
“The government might have an interest in prohibiting concealed promises from candidates to potential nominees,” Benjamin wrote. “Secret promises give no information to voters, so their only benefit is a private one to the candidate and/or to the nominee. That underscores the implausibility of any government interest in preventing the public naming of nominees in advance. There is no corrupting element.”
