I think you may be confused. Here's what should happen - by law, by statute, and what any more general conflicts of interest policy would tell you in roughly a

I think you may be confused. Here's what should happen - by law, by statute, and what any more general conflicts of interest policy would tell you in roughly any situation: "Oh, this is a thing that appears <doesn't have to be actual> it might have material effect on a business I own <for example, there are other reasons he would be required to recuse here>, and I am in a position of apparent <it doesn't have to be actual> power over some portion of it. Therefore, i'm not supposed to be involved at all. I have to go out of my way to be disinvolved. I don't opine on it, I don't try to learn anything about it, I don't try to influence it. If my subordinates are involved, I deliberately refuse to talk to them about it as well". That's generally the rule. The rules are actually worse for him here, but i'm made it less worse for the sake of my response. No matter what though, you can see he doesn't have to be involved in the decision for it to be a conflict, and it's not enough to not be involved in the decision making. He also can't opine on it or try to influence it through opinion, or talk to others about it. That's what it means to recuse from something - you are not involved at all, and involvement is not just "active" involvement, but "passive" involvement (opinion offering, influence) as well. So regardless of whether he is involved in the decision making itself (i would not be surprised if he was, but let's put it aside) ... here is clearly doing the other things - hopefully you've read his tweets and other opinions on this, but if not, happy to link where he is clearly giving opinions and views and trying to influence the result, post being employed by the government.