I mean, the OSC isn't some bunch of randoms who call themselves "official" for funsies. Violations of the Hatch Act fall under their jurisdiction. They're the ones that investigate violations. They put out a statement that says political messages (of a certain kind) are totally fine.
This means, to me, that claiming "The official interpretation of the Hatch act was changed" isn't at all a stretch. The officials,
the ones in charge of interpreting it, put out a statement saying they've changed how they're interpreting it. How is that deceptive? What words would you use instead?
The judiciary interprets the law. As I said, you can narrowly say OSC is "official" and "interprets" the law, but it's a deceptive way to describe the situation. Hopefully we'll see another group successully claim standing for being harmed by Hatch Act violations.
An honest way to describe the situation is "the Trump OSC has decided that Trump should investigate Trump and it is unclear if anyone else can sue for relief from a politicized civil service". At the very least "they've put out a statement saying they've changed their interpretation" is far better than the passive voice.
It feels off to frame this as a routine legal question when the branches themselves aren’t behaving routinely. The current executive has reduced the other branches to handmaidens of its will.
This means, to me, that claiming "The official interpretation of the Hatch act was changed" isn't at all a stretch. The officials, the ones in charge of interpreting it, put out a statement saying they've changed how they're interpreting it. How is that deceptive? What words would you use instead?