HUD Inspector General Finds Ben Carson Violated Ethics Rules by Involving Son in Official Business

The HUD Office of Inspector General investigated allegations that Secretary Benjamin Carson used his office for the personal benefit of his son, Benjamin Carson Jr., a federal contractor, by allowing him to participate in official Department matters including a June 2017 HUD “listening tour” in Baltimore, Maryland. HUD lawyers explicitly warned Carson that his son’s involvement would constitute an apparent conflict of interest in violation of federal ethics rules, but Carson proceeded anyway. The department’s deputy general counsel raised concerns directly with Carson about potential ethics violations before the Baltimore event.

Background

In February 2018, the HUD IG opened an investigation into Carson’s handling of his son’s involvement in official HUD activities. Ben Carson Jr. used the Baltimore listening tour and other HUD events to promote his business interests and make connections that could benefit his federal contracting work. Documents obtained by American Oversight revealed multiple attempts by Carson Jr. to leverage his father’s position for business advantage. Despite clear warnings from HUD’s legal team that the arrangement risked violating federal ethics regulations, Carson allowed his son’s continued participation in departmental activities.

The September 2019 IG report found that while Carson did not technically violate the specific “private gain” rule, he “could have done more to avoid the appearance that he was not complying with federal ethics regulations.” The IG’s carefully worded findings acknowledged serious ethical concerns while stopping short of finding a direct violation. The investigation revealed a pattern where Carson prioritized family relationships over compliance with ethics rules designed to prevent conflicts of interest and nepotism.

Significance

Carson’s willingness to involve his son in official HUD business despite explicit warnings from ethics lawyers demonstrated a cavalier attitude toward conflict-of-interest rules. The “appearance of impropriety” finding by the IG confirmed that Carson’s actions undermined public trust even if they didn’t constitute technical violations. This episode exemplified how Trump Cabinet officials navigated the gray areas of ethics rules to benefit family members while maintaining plausible deniability. The fact that Carson ignored direct warnings from HUD’s legal team revealed contempt for ethics oversight and professional advice. The pattern of involving family members in official business, common across the Trump administration, normalized nepotism and conflicts of interest that previous administrations had carefully avoided.