Inspectors general’s role as independent government watchdogs in question after Trump firings
Many inspector general offices will be headed by acting leaders in the interim, which could weaken the effectiveness of their oversight.
Updated: 3:30 p.m., Jan. 28
President Donald Trump’s firing late Friday of multiple federal agency inspectors general has led to questions about the continued independence and credibility of the oversight officials and fears that they’ll be replaced with loyalists instead of watchdogs.
“What President Trump has just done is strike this huge blow against independence. So I would imagine that it would cross the mind of an inspector general, or perhaps someone in their office, even before taking on an investigation: Would this investigation put my career at risk? Would it put my livelihood at risk?” said Faith Williams, the director of the Effective and Accountable Government Program at the Project On Government Oversight. “Those types of considerations, I would imagine, are much more on the forefront this week than say they were last week.”
Warning signs
One of the ousted IGs — Mark Greenblatt of the Interior Department, who was appointed by Trump during his first term — said in a Monday CNN interview that even he wasn’t sure how many watchdogs were removed but believes it’s 17 or 18.
“To get an email from the White House…on a Friday night at 7:30, I knew that couldn’t be good. So I opened it up, there was a two-sentence email…that said ‘In light of changing priorities, you are terminated from your position at the Department of the Interior effective immediately. Thank you for your service,’” he said. “We’re still sifting through the rubble, frankly, to find out how many IGs were removed. As far as I know, all of us got essentially the same email.”
Andrew Bakaj, the chief legal counsel for Whistleblower Aid who has previously worked in two IG offices, was surprised by the speed of the firings but not that they happened.
“I was actually anticipating it. It wasn’t a question of were they going to do it but when,” he said. “I actually had an op-ed drafted, preparing for that.”
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a conservative policy playbook that Trump distanced himself from after Democrats began using it in campaign attacks, recommended replacing the IGs.
Also, Trump removed five IGs over a span of six weeks in 2020 during his first term, including the intelligence community’s watchdog who handled the whistleblower complaint that led to his first impeachment.
IG Independence
Glenn Fine, who served as the Justice Department’s IG and was acting IG at the Defense Department when he was removed by Trump in the 2020 purge, said the latest firings portend further politicization of the watchdogs.
“I think it sends a message to the inspector general community that is unfortunate; it sends a message that they are viewed as part of one administration or another when they should be viewed as nonpartisan and apolitical,” he said.
When asked about the removals, Trump did not give a thorough explanation.
“I don’t know them…but some people thought that some were unfair, some were not doing their job, and it’s a very standard thing to do,” Trump said during a press gaggle late Saturday on Air Force One.
While political appointees are generally replaced during a presidential transition, IGs typically stay on regardless of the administration.
A White House official said in a statement to Government Executive that the firings will “make room for qualified individuals who will uphold the rule of law and protect Democracy.”
“These rogue, partisan bureaucrats who have weaponized the justice system against their political enemies are no longer fit or deserve to serve in their appointed positions,” the official said.
Future Credibility
Bakaj predicted the firings will cast doubt on future reports by IG offices on waste, fraud and abuse in government that currently are widely heralded for their objectivity.
“It's going to call into question the credibility of whoever is now overseeing the agency, even if — even if — a particular agency and investigation is being conducted properly,” he said. “It just, unfortunately, it creates this aura of doubt, which is unnecessary.”
Trump has not given an indication of who he would nominate to fill these roles.
“I don’t know anybody that would do that. We’ll put people in there that will be very good,” he told the press on Saturday.
Greenblatt contended that who Trump picks to fill these vacancies will greatly determine whether IG offices remain independent.
“Is he going to nominate watchdogs or is he going to nominate lap dogs? That’s the key question,” he said on CNN.
Interim Leadership
Until the Senate confirms Trump’s IG nominees, the offices will be led by acting officials, who generally will be deputy IGs.
“Sometimes officials of the agency think they can wait out an acting IG and not implement [their] recommendations. Sometimes employees of the IG's office think they can wait out an acting IG. Sometimes it's harder to hire staff with an acting IG because the staff may not be assured that the acting IG will be there for a long time,” said Fine, who was an acting IG. “So, all in all, it's better to have permanent, confirmed IGs, but there are many acting IGs who have run the office well and effectively for significant periods of time.”
Bakaj argued that having IG offices mostly led by acting officials could hamper their effectiveness.
“That precludes certain decisions from being made because individuals in an acting role can't do what the appointed individual can. It's going to create some problems,” he said. “But at the same time, if you don’t want IGs to do a whole lot of work, just have a bunch of actings everywhere.”
Prior to Friday’s mass firing, there already were 15 IG vacancies.
Ignored Requirements
In a letter obtained by Politico, Hannibal “Mike” Ware, the chairperson of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, informed the White House on Friday that he does not believe the removals of him and others are legal because of a requirement for the president to notify Congress 30 days before removing an IG.
“I recommend that you reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss Presidentially Appointed, Senate Confirmed Inspectors General,” Ware wrote. He is the IG for the Small Business Administration and acting IG for the Social Security Administration.
Bakaj is not optimistic that a legal challenge will ultimately change the outcome.
“What [the Trump administration] may wind up doing is just say ‘Fine, we'll put the inspectors general on an immediate administrative leave for the next three 30 days, and then at the end of the 30-day cycle terminate them,’” he said.
Congressional Reactions
Williams thinks pushback from senators could move the needle in favor of the ousted IGs.
“I really am hopeful and want to see bipartisan condemnation of this, particularly in the Senate which approves these inspectors general,” she said. “I think senators on both sides of the aisle, if they speak out against this and speak out strongly, then perhaps that is the path forward, regardless of litigation.”
A spokesperson for Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, who recently launched the bipartisan Inspector General Caucus, said in a statement to Government Executive that the senator “looks forward to learning more about this decision and working with the president to nominate replacements, so the important work of independent investigators to root out waste, fraud, and abuse can continue with full transparency.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a longtime IG defender, said in a statement to Government Executive that he wants more information justifying the removals: “There may be good reason the IGs were fired. We need to know that if so. I’d like further explanation from President Trump.”
Grassley and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Tuesday sent a letter to Trump requesting the "substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons" for each of the removals, the name of each official that will serve as an acting IG and that he "work quickly to nominate qualified and non-partisan individuals to serve in these open positions."
In an interview with NBC News, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he wasn’t worried about the IG removals, even though he acknowledged that Trump “technically” violated the law by not notifying Congress 30 days ahead of time.
“When you win an election, you need people in your administration that reflect your views,” he said. “Trump has the authority to do it, so I’m not losing a whole lot of sleep that he wants to change the personnel out.”
Top Democrats on House committees sent a letter to Trump on Saturday, urging him to reverse course.
“Firing inspectors general without due cause is antithetical to good government, undermines the proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and degrades the federal government’s ability to function effectively and efficiently,” they wrote.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also condemned the removals in floor remarks Saturday.
“President Trump has an aversion to the truth, and when someone confronts him with truth and facts, he fires them and replaces them with loyalists,” he said.
This story has been updated with the letter from Durbin and Grassley.