What rules govern official White House social media posting and who is authorized to post on behalf of the president?

1. Legal guardrails: ethics, the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act

Federal rules restrict partisan political activity by federal employees while on duty or using official authority — guidance on social media explicitly warns employees they may not like or share partisan content while in the workplace under Hatch Act interpretations — and presidential social media is treated as part of the administration’s official record under the Presidential Records Act, which has prompted White House archives and transfers of social content to the National Archives ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. Who writes and posts: the Office of Digital Strategy and its delegated team

Operational control over White House and presidential messaging is centralized in the White House’s digital communications machinery — commonly the Office of Digital Strategy (ODS) — which manages official accounts, video, creative production and online outreach, and is led by a Director who reports up through the White House staff hierarchy, meaning posting authority is typically exercised by designated digital staff rather than ad hoc employees ^[3].

3. Platform rules, privacy PIAs, and third‑party constraints

Because White House accounts sit on privately operated platforms, the White House conducts Privacy Impact Assessments consistent with OMB guidance to analyze how engagement on third‑party sites could surface personally identifiable information and to explain what the administration may archive from user interactions, requiring both technical and policy controls when using those platforms ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Recordkeeping: archiving social posts as presidential records

Administrations since Obama have treated social media posts as presidential records that must be preserved and transferred to archives; the creation of public White House social archives and the transfer of records to presidential libraries and the National Archives underscore that social posts are subject to the PRA’s retention and access expectations ^{[4] [7] [5]}.

5. Practical limits and who gets blamed when lines blur

News coverage and watchdog reporting show that while designated digital teams operate official accounts, the tone and targets of posts can reflect broader political strategy decided at higher levels of the White House, and conflict emerges when content looks more like campaigning or partisan media play than sober governance messaging — a criticism leveled in recent reporting about the Trump White House’s social output that framed the operation as resembling a media company or partisan outlet ^{[8] [9]}.

6. What counts as “on behalf of the president”: official vs. personal channels

The legal and archival distinction between an official White House account and a president’s personal account is central but operationally messy: official accounts are managed by staff and preserved as presidential records, while personal accounts — when used to conduct official business — have in practice been treated by archivists as part of the presidential record, but specifics depend on context and transfer decisions made at administration transition ^{[4] [5]}.

7. Enforcement, transparency and the reporting gaps

Enforcement of these rules involves multiple actors — the Office of Special Counsel for Hatch Act matters, White House counsel, archive officials and platform terms of service — but public sources do not provide a single, public rulebook that lists every individual authorized to post; available documents establish institutional responsibilities and constraints, yet reporting shows politics and strategy often determine how those rules are applied in practice ^{[1] [3] [2]}.