President Donald Trump took the unusual step Friday of firing 18 of the federal government’s 73 inspectors general. Those let go — from the departments of Defense, State, Labor, Health and Human Services, among other places — were told only that “changing priorities” led to their dismissal.
Inspectors general, as they are called, are found all over Washington, D.C., in a wide range of agencies and departments. They seldom make news, but they play an important role in blowing the whistle on instances of gross inefficiencies or unlawful behavior and by not being the servants of any political party. In short, as Creighton University law professor Michael Kelly writes, the inspector general is a “modern adaptation to achieving the checks and balances the Framers of our Constitution intended when they created the federal government.”
So why would Trump go after them at the start of his second term?
This is not the first time Trump has targeted inspectors general.
Doing so, Kelly explains, “lays the groundwork for taking over that government from within.” As he puts it, “if the designated watchers aren’t watching, because they’ve been purged by the very abuse of power they were installed to prevent, then the way is open for more abuse and corruption to flow.”
The mass firing also sends a clear message not just to remaining inspectors general, including those at the departments of Justice and Homeland Security, but also to the rest of the federal bureaucracy: Get with the program or you will be next.
Downplaying the significance of the dismissals, the president told reporters that firing IGs is “a very common thing to do.”
“I don’t know them,” he told reporters, “But some people thought that some were unfair or some were not doing their job. It’s a very standard thing to do.’”
It’s true that this is not the first time Trump has targeted inspectors general. Late in his first term, he dismissed the inspectors general of five Cabinet departments. But unlike this time, those firings took place over a six-week period. And mass firings are exceptionally rare. Upon taking office in 1981, Ronald Reagan removed all 15 inspectors general then serving, only to rehire about half of them later. Since then, no president has removed more than two IGs — except for Trump.
Congress created the first inspector general position in 1976, in an era of post-Watergate reform. Two years later, it passed the Inspector General Act of 1978. That law said that inspectors general should lead “independent and objective units,” which would, among other things, “conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations” of the departments and agencies in which they serve. And Congress made clear that these new officers did not just report to the executive branch. The law also required them to keep agency heads and Congress “fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of… programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action.”
Thirty years later, Congress amended the regulations around the IG role, requiring that a president “shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer [of an inspector general] to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.”
The constitutional precedents here are similarly clear-cut.
As a 2021 Congressional Research Report notes, “the legislative history of the 2008 amendment suggests that the purpose of this change was to ‘allow for an appropriate dialogue with Congress in the event that the planned transfer or removal is viewed as an inappropriate or politically motivated attempt to terminate an effective Inspector General.’”
In 2022, following Trump’s first term purge of IGs, Congress strengthened that requirement by saying that the president had to provide a “substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons” before terminating an IG. The constitutional precedents here are similarly clear-cut. The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress’ exclusive authority “to create executive branch offices….and when necessary, design an office in a way that encourages operational independence from the political influence of the executive branch….” It also has made clear that the president’s removal power is not “illimitable.” But neither clear statutes nor congressional authority or constitutional limits on the removal power seemed to matter to Trump or his allies. The president “has a right to get in there who he wants,” Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton argued — a more deferential approach than he has taken to Democratic presidents. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, who co-sponsored the 2008 amendment, nevertheless shrank from confronting Trump. “There may be good reason the IG were fired,” he insisted. And according to The Associated Press, Sen. Lindsey Graham even admitted that Trump had not followed statutes. “Just tell them you need to follow the law next time,” Graham said. Such a casual attitude toward a president who ignores the law doesn’t augur well for what is to come. A letter to the president from House Democrats was anything but casual. “Your actions,” it said, “violate the law, attack our democracy, and undermine the safety of the American people….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 were right. But maybe those reasons were precisely why Trump did what he did Friday night.
Austin Sarat
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. The views expressed here do not represent Amherst College. 
