OPINION:
While many were sleeping late last Friday, the White House informed 17 inspectors general that their services were no longer required. The unexpected termination notes came as a shock to the watchdogs assigned to government departments.
Only Michael Horowitz, who oversees the Justice Department, and Joseph Cuffari Jr., who monitors the Department of Homeland Security, were spared from the culling.
The inspector general’s job is to hunt for waste, fraud and abuse within the government. Given the rampant misconduct across the executive branch, there’s a case to be made that more aggressive supervision is warranted. President Trump wants new blood in these positions, not just functionaries who churn out the legally required annual reports.
Some inspectors general have become active participants in questionable events. During Mr. Trump’s first term, Michael Atkinson was the intelligence community’s inspector general. His actions enabled Democrats to impeach the president over his “perfect” 2019 phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Mr. Atkinson quietly modified whistleblower rules to allow a complaint to proceed from someone with secondhand information about what might have been said during the president-to-president conversation, which discussed, among other things, President Biden’s shady overseas business dealings.
A formal Justice Department legal ruling rejected Mr. Atkinson’s reasoning for bestowing whistleblower status on someone with information that’s not an urgent concern. But by then it didn’t matter. The existence of a supposed whistleblower was leaked to the media, triggering the intended firestorm.
When Mr. Atkinson testified behind closed doors about his conduct in 2019, Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican, was not impressed by what he heard. “I don’t know what planet that dude’s from, but he’s either totally incompetent or he’s part of the deep state … or in on it,” he said in a 2019 interview on “Breitbart News Sunday.”
Some inspectors general are seen as institutionalists who provide cover for the agency they’re supposed to police. In a September report, the House Administration subcommittee on oversight documented discrepancies between the Pentagon inspector general’s private testimony and his public report about the Jan. 6, 2021, incident at the Capitol.
“The fact that an IG report can be used to manipulate a historical narrative to protect the very department it’s tasked with overseeing is deeply concerning,” said the panel’s chairman, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, Georgia Republican.
Congress passed the Inspector General Reform Act in 2008 to isolate the inspector general position from political pressures. The law states that the commander in chief may not fire an inspector general unless the president gives Congress 30 days’ notice and a legitimate reason for the dismissal.
The White House says Congress has overstepped its boundaries in imposing these conditions and points to a 2020 Supreme Court case rejecting the law stating the president could fire the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director only “for cause.” President Obama also ignored the notice and cause requirement when he gave the AmeriCorps inspector general one hour to clean out his office in 2009.
It’s certainly a good idea to have a strong inspector general who is not afraid of termination for uncovering an administration’s transgressions. On the other hand, if a president can’t fire his subordinates, then they’re not really working for the elected president who is accountable to voters.
Phyllis Fong, the Agriculture Department’s inspector general nominated by President George W. Bush, didn’t accept the president’s reasoning. She refused to step down after 22 years on the job.
Security escorted her out of the building Monday.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.