In the months leading up to Donald Trump's presidency, his team of advisers began discussing the possibility of removing inspectors general (IGs) from various federal agencies, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversations. These discussions surfaced during his transition into the White House, but there remains uncertainty about whether these moves would actually take place, or when they might occur.
The notion of firing IGs, who are tasked with overseeing government operations and ensuring accountability, has sparked concerns among critics. While the decision hasn't been finalized, the lack of clarity about which watchdogs could be removed or when it might happen is generating significant attention. This uncertainty has left many wondering whether Trump is aiming to weaken independent oversight of government agencies.
Inspectors general play a crucial role in the federal government, ensuring that agencies operate without corruption or abuse of power. Under current law, the president has the authority to dismiss IGs, but this action must be preceded by a 30-day notice to Congress, with a clear explanation provided for the dismissal. In 2022, Congress strengthened protections for IGs, making it harder for the president to remove them and demanding more transparency regarding such decisions.
What makes this conversation even more contentious is that while political appointees in government agencies often change with each new administration, inspectors general can stay on for multiple terms, serving under different presidents. This creates an important layer of continuity in oversight, something that many worry could be compromised if Trump were to remove these watchdogs.
Trump’s past actions provide a glimpse into his approach toward inspectors general. During his first term in office, he made headlines by firing several IGs, including five in a span of just six weeks in 2020. This move sparked a flurry of criticism from lawmakers and government watchdogs, with many accusing Trump of trying to eliminate independent checks on the federal government. These actions raised alarms about the erosion of safeguards against corruption and the abuse of power.
One of the most notable instances was in April 2020 when Trump dismissed Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community. Atkinson had played a significant role in transmitting a whistleblower complaint to Congress that ultimately led to Trump's impeachment over his dealings with Ukraine. Trump, however, defended the firing, stating that Atkinson had done a "terrible job" and had wrongly escalated a "fake" report. This move highlighted the tension between the president and the inspectors general, especially when their investigations threatened to expose wrongdoing.
Trump's firing of State Department inspector general Steve Linick was another controversial decision. According to Trump, the dismissal was requested by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was under investigation by Linick’s office. Trump explained that he had no issues with Linick’s performance, but acquiesced to Pompeo’s request, saying he would take action "sure, I’ll do that." This incident sparked even more questions about the independence of the IG office and whether political pressure was influencing such decisions.
Interestingly, the removal of inspectors general isn't a tactic limited to Trump alone. Both former President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden have removed IGs under certain circumstances. For example, Obama fired Gerald Walpin, the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, in 2009 after Walpin raised concerns about a settlement involving Sacramento’s then-mayor Kevin Johnson. Similarly, Biden made headlines when he dismissed the inspector general for the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board after an investigation into workplace harassment.
But what exactly are inspectors general responsible for? Since 1978, these officials have been tasked with investigating waste, fraud, and abuse within the federal government. The role of IGs is pivotal because they ensure agencies act with integrity and in the public’s best interest. They are also expected to be impartial, appointed based on their expertise rather than political affiliation. Federal law mandates that IGs be hired without regard to party lines, emphasizing integrity and competence.
Despite the lack of prosecutorial power, inspectors general have the authority to identify potential criminal behavior within government agencies and refer it for prosecution. This is one of the key checks on corruption, ensuring that no one, regardless of their position, is above the law. As such, the independence of IGs is vital in upholding the integrity of government operations.
Currently, there are numerous vacant IG positions within federal agencies, providing Trump the opportunity to appoint his own loyalists to these roles. The vacancies include high-profile agencies such as the Treasury and Commerce Departments, as well as the National Security Agency. In fact, both the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence saw their IGs resign in late 2024, creating additional openings for Trump to fill with his preferred candidates.
This power to appoint or dismiss inspectors general has the potential for significant political ramifications. Trump, for instance, has long criticized the work of certain IGs, especially when their investigations or reports clashed with his political interests. His frustration with the Pentagon's IG reports is well-documented, with Trump once describing them as "insane" for being made public, suggesting they could be used by "the enemy." Such statements underline his opposition to independent oversight, particularly when it contradicts his agenda.
In the past, these kinds of actions have sparked political backlash. When President Ronald Reagan removed more than a dozen IGs on his first day in office in 1981, it created a firestorm of criticism. Both Republicans and Democrats accused Reagan of politicizing the role of inspectors general. The public outcry led Reagan to reverse some of those firings and reinstate the watchdogs. This historical example serves as a cautionary tale for any president considering the removal of IGs, as the resulting political fallout can be significant.
The importance of inspectors general is underscored by their role in supporting congressional oversight. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, a staunch advocate for IGs, has repeatedly emphasized their significance in maintaining the checks and balances that prevent abuse of power. Grassley views IGs as essential to ensuring that the law is enforced impartially and that taxpayer money is used appropriately.
In 2017, during Trump’s transition to office, there was already talk of removing inspectors general, with an internal email revealing that some IGs were being informed that their positions were only temporary. This early indication of a desire to shake up the IG community aligns with Trump’s consistent criticism of the role throughout his presidency.
For many, the potential removal of inspectors general represents more than just a bureaucratic shakeup—it signals a deeper concern about the erosion of safeguards that protect the public from government overreach. Faith Williams, director of the Effective and Accountable Government Program at the Project on Government Oversight, expressed her worry that removing these watchdogs would leave the American public vulnerable to corruption and abuse of power. "It would essentially be removing this critical component of oversight," Williams warned, adding that it could significantly weaken the mechanisms in place to hold government accountable.
In the end, the fate of these independent watchdogs remains uncertain. Whether Trump moves forward with removing them or not, the broader conversation about the role of inspectors general and the importance of independent oversight will undoubtedly continue to spark debate. As Williams suggests, the outcry against such moves would ideally reflect the importance of IGs in holding the government to account—after all, the very foundation of a democratic society relies on the integrity of those entrusted with public office.
Login