These inspector general nominees serve their own political interests, not America's

The Hill

02-05-2025

The White House recently announced two troubling nominees for inspector general positions: former Rep. Anthony D'Esposito (R-N.Y.) for the Department of Labor inspector general and Thomas Bell for inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services.
These candidates are the opposite of what taxpayers need in these positions to protect their tax dollars and essential government programs and services. The U.S. Senate should serve its constituents and reject these nominees.
Inspectors general are the nonpartisan watchdogs inside federal agencies, tasked with conducting fair, objective and independent oversight of the federal government. For more than 45 years, they have uncovered hundreds of billions of dollars in potential savings in federal programs, not to mention conducting criminal investigations leading to thousands of convictions for defrauding the government and other crimes.
For example, a 2023 report from the Small Business Administration inspector general revealed that the administration had decided to stop collecting on certain delinquent loans totaling roughly $62 billion. After the Office of the Inspector General's report, the Small Business Administration reversed course and announced plans to pursue those deadbeat loans aggressively, which could recover as much as $30 billion for American taxpayers.
Inspector general oversight has improved the full scope of federal programs for the American public, from preventing veteran suicides to fighting the opioid epidemic, stopping abusive nursing homes, ferreting out corrupt officials, averting bank failures and protecting American farmers.
When I served as the chair of the Council of the Inspectors General, I led the panel that recommended inspector general candidates to the White House, as required by the Inspector General Act. We reviewed roughly 100 applicants over the years and recommended qualified candidates who we believed would make successful inspectors general.
If the panel had received the resumes of Bell and Esposito for appointments, I am confident we would have rejected them outright for three important reasons: ethical clouds hanging over them, extensive partisan political backgrounds and policy advocacy.
First, as watchdogs, inspectors general must be above reproach. Their offices root out ethical misconduct in their agencies and help hold federal employees of all levels accountable, including the highest-ranking presidential appointees.
In fact, the Inspector General Act requires that the president appoint inspectors general 'solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability' in several enumerated disciplines.
But both of these candidates have ethical baggage. First, the New York Times reported that D'Esposito, a former New York state representative, may have violated House ethics rules by giving part-time jobs to both his lover and his fiancée's daughter.
In a statement to the New York Post, D'Esposito called the Times article 'a slimy, partisan 'hit piece'' and stated that he ' upheld the highest ethical standards.'
Bell was reportedly found by the Virginia auditor of public accounts to have mishandled taxpayer funds while in the Virginia government by directing improper payments to a former colleague. He was forced to resign.
These are our ethics watchdogs?
These allegations are not minor foot-faults; to the contrary, they get to the heart of what inspectors general do: holding senior officials accountable for misconduct. This would make a mockery of the inspector general construct — the fox guarding the proverbial henhouse. With their ethical clouds, these candidates should not be serving as inspectors general; they should be investigated by one.
Beyond the ethics issues hanging over them, these nominees should be rejected in light of their highly partisan backgrounds. Inspectors general must be apolitical to do their jobs fairly and effectively. In fact, the Inspector General Act requires that the president appoint inspectors general 'without regard to political affiliation.'
It is hard to believe that these two candidates were appointed for any reason other than their partisan backgrounds.
The Health and Human Services nominee serves as the counsel for the House Republicans and has spent much of his career either working for or representing Republicans. One Democratic critic of his tenure in the Virginia government reportedly called him 'a political operative' and asserted that he 'specialized in shades of truth.'
The Labor Department nominee is a former Republican congressman who blasted the Biden administration on a variety of matters (many of his quotes are still available on his campaign website) and reportedly sought political appointments in the Trump administration just a few weeks ago.
There is nothing wrong with partisan experience or seeking political appointments, per se. But such backgrounds are anathema to serving as an inspector general.
The central tenet of inspectors general is independence, meaning they should not be beholden to any political party or ideology. Moreover, it is critical that the American public and Congress perceive them as neutral fact-finders.
If inspectors general have significant partisan backgrounds, that experience eviscerates their credibility as fair and objective arbiters serving the interests of American taxpayers.
Suppose D'Esposito, as inspector general of Labor, issues a report finding problems with a Biden-era program; will anyone view such a report as unbiased, in light of comments like ' The Democratic Party is dangerous, ' or ' [Democrats] just continued to lie and gaslight the American people: no real policies, no plans '? It would have been similarly inappropriate for the Biden administration to appoint a Never Trumper to an inspector general position.
A final disqualifying aspect of these nominations is their policy-related actions in areas that would be under their purview as inspectors general.
For example, Bell has apparently advocated policy matters related to abortion. He reportedly gave a speech in which he appeared to advocate for litigation against abortion clinics to choke off their funding and shut them down.
For his part, D'Esposito's support for union labor was an issue in his campaign just a few months ago. He celebrated receiving the endorsement from the state chapter of the Civil Servant Employees Association, posting on Facebook: 'Honored to accept the endorsement of CSEA Local 1000 for my re-election campaign. While my opponent chose to sue unions, I'll continue to work with and defend union labor.'
To be clear, it does not matter the nature of the advocacy — the key is that they have advocated on policy matters that would be under their oversight as inspector general.
That's exactly the opposite of how an inspector general should be. As neutral oversight professionals, inspectors general must studiously avoid making policy calls. They review programs for efficiency and effectiveness and investigate misconduct, but we leave the policy calls to the elected officials.
Inspector general assessments of a department's programs must be impartial and neutral on the policies at issue, or else they will appear to have a dog in that fight.
How will Bell's reports have credibility if they involve abortion funding or abortion clinics or D'Esposito's reports involving labor unions? There is no way around the problem that Bell and D'Esposito will look like they have a thumb on the scale for particular policy outcomes.
In light of their ethical baggage, partisan backgrounds and policy advocacy, these nominations make a mockery of the entire inspector general construct. I fear they would be lap dogs, not the watchdogs American taxpayers need and deserve.
These nominees are equivalent to Matt Gaetz's nomination for attorney general — not only are they unqualified, but their past actions are disqualifying. And, their nominations should suffer the same fate as that of Gaetz.
Mark Greenblatt was the inspector general of the United States Department of the Interior from August 2019 until January 2025. He also served as chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency from 2023 to 2024 and as vice chair from 2022 to 2023.