Latest news with #IGAct
Epoch Times
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
The Case of the Fired Inspectors General
Commentary On March 27, Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, held a hearing in The fired IGs argue that their 'purported terminations violate the plain language of a federal statute—one enacted with bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by the President. Specifically, the Inspector General Act (IG Act) unambiguously provides that an IG may be removed only 'by the President,' who must first (1) notify Congress about a planned removal at least 30 days before it occurs and (2) provide a substantive, case-specific rationale for the termination.' According to the fired IGs, each of their removals 'from their positions was done ... without any such notice, and without any rationale being provided. Each removal is therefore a nullity.' In a footnote, counsel for the fired IGs admitted, in effect, that the 'plain language' of the statute at issue is not so plain: 'This statutory provision was not recodified following the 2022 amendments, which are reflected at Public Law No. 117-286, §3(b), 136 Stat. 4208 (2022).' This is an important case about important constitutional issues, and statutory issues involving the authority of inspectors general, who by statute are charged with rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse. Related Stories 4/16/2025 4/9/2025 Inspectors general serve a crucial and unique role in explaining to the American people, typically but not exclusively through Congress, how our government is spending our tax dollars. At the onset of the March 27 hearing, Judge Reyes announced she had not made up her mind about these constitutional and statutory issues. After the hearing, she 'took the matter under advisement.' The easiest and most constitutionally-principled way for Judge Reyes to resolve this case is for her to accept the Justice Department's interpretation of the statute, thereby avoiding the difficult constitutional issues underlying the IGs seeking a declaration that their firings were 'a nullity.' Justice Department counsel for the defendants, who include Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Trump, did a good job explaining to Judge Reyes the difference between the president's authority to remove an inspector general, and the provision in the IG Act calling for the president to notify Congress of the reasons for firing any IG. During the hearing, counsel for the eight fired IG's, Seth Waxman, presented to Judge Reyes a letter dated March 26 from the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asking the acting Department of Defense (DoD) IG to conduct an inquiry into the recent incident in which a reporter was included, apparently by mistake, in a group Signal chat that included members of the National Security Council. According to the senators, 'This chat was alleged to have included classified information pertaining to sensitive military actions in Yemen.' Judge Reyes promptly asked Waxman if the acting DoD IG is required to answer the letter, to which Mr. Waxman replied 'Yes.' With all due respect, Mr. Waxman was wrong. There is nothing in the IG Act that requires the acting DoD IG to answer the letter or to conduct the requested inquiry. Nevertheless, on April 3, the acting DoD IG released a memo to Hegseth announcing that 'we are initiating' an 'Evaluation of the Secretary of Defense's Reported Use of a Commercially Available Messaging Application for Official Business,' citing the March 26 letter from the chairman and ranking member. My April 10 article, ' This footnote is antithetical to transparent government, and creates the appearance that the acting DoD IG is engaging in hidden politics. The acting DoD IG should identify all members of Congress who made 'similar requests.' The American People deserve to know. I still think that the easiest and most constitutionally principled way for Judge Reyes to resolve this case about important constitutional issues, and statutory issues involving the authority of inspectors general, is for her to accept the Justice Department's following interpretation of the statute, thereby avoiding the difficult constitutional issues. The Justice Department attorney representing the defendants has argued: 'Because the Inspector General Act does not make the President's removal authority contingent on compliance with the congressional notice provision, Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on any of their claims or in obtaining any of the relief they seek in their Complaint.' If Congress does not like this result, Congress can clarify its currently not-so 'plain language.' Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
The Guardian
12-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US inspectors general fired by Trump sue to win jobs back
Several federal watchdogs fired by Donald Trump have filed a lawsuit against his administration to get their jobs back. In the suit filed on Wednesday, eight former inspectors general from eight government agencies including defense, veterans affairs, health and human services, state, agriculture, education, labor and the Small Business Administration, said they were seeking 'redress for their unlawful and unjustified purported termination' by Trump and their respective agency heads. The lawsuit states that just four days into his second term, Trump, 'acting through a two-sentence email sent by the director or deputy director of the office of presidential personnel, purported to remove from office (supposedly on account of 'changing priorities') nearly a score of IGs'. It also says that the fired officials were 'appointed by and/or served under presidents of both parties', including Trump during his first term. Altogether, the inspectors general who were fired were responsible for conducting and facilitating oversight of more than $5tn of appropriated funds annually and more than 3.5 million federal employees, or 80% of the federal workforce. The lawsuit alleges: 'Despite the obvious illegality of these purported terminations, the head of each affected agency – including the eight heads of plaintiffs' respective agencies–effectuated and continue to effectuate the purported removals.' It adds that the eight federal agencies removed the inspectors general from their access to their government email accounts and computer systems, government-issued phones, personal ID cards and computers. The inspectors general were also alleged to have been banned from entering the government buildings where they worked, with the lawsuit stating that 'these actions have had their intended effect of making it impossible for the IGs to perform their lawful duties'. 'Because the purported removals were illegal and hence a nullity, the actions just described constituted illegal interference with the IGs' official duties,' the lawsuit says, adding 'neither President Trump nor anyone else in his administration has claimed that the purported removals complied with the IG Act'. 'Instead, President Trump falsely claimed after the fact that such removals were 'a very common thing to do' and 'a very standard thing to do,'' the lawsuit says, alleging that Trump is 'wrong to claim these actions were 'common' or 'standard'. As part of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that their purported removals were legal nullities and so they remain as inspectors general of their agencies unless and until the president lawfully removes them in compliance with statutory procedures. Additionally, the plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants or anyone working in concert with them from impeding the lawful exercises of the duties of their office, the lawsuit says. Wednesday's lawsuit follows Trump's sacking of 18 inspectors general less than a month after he returned to the White House. Hannibal 'Mike' Ware, one of the plaintiffs in Wednesday's lawsuit and former inspector general for the Small Business Administration, told MSNBC last month: 'This is not about any of our individual jobs. We acknowledge that the president has the right to remove any of us that he chooses. But the protections that were baked into the act is everything, absent having to provide a real reason. We're looking at what amounts to a threat to democracy, a threat to independent oversight, and a threat to transparency in government.' Similarly, Mark Greenblatt, the former inspector general of the interior department, told CNN that the firings 'should be setting off alarm bells'. 'The whole construct of inspectors general, it's based on us being independent, that we're not beholden to a political party of any stripe, that we are there as the taxpayers' representatives to call balls and strikes without any dog in the fight. And so the question is: what will President Trump do with these positions? Is he going to nominate watchdogs or is he going to nominate lapdogs?' said Greenblatt.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Inspectors general watchdogs sue over Trump firings, alleging they are illegal
Feb. 12 (UPI) -- Eight federal inspectors general filed a lawsuit Wednesday alleging their firings by President Donald Trump violated federal law. The suit was filed by eight of the 17 inspectors general fired by Trump from the departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, State, Agriculture, Education, Labor and the Small Business Administration. "The purported firings violated unambiguous federal statutes -- each enacted by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed into law by the president -- to protect Inspectors General from precisely this sort of interference with the discharge of their critical, non-partisan oversight duties," the lawsuit said. The suit adds that Trump's "attempt to eliminate a crucial and longstanding source of impartial, non-partisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law." Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa and Sen. Richard Durbin told Trump in a letter that IGs can be fired by presidents, but it must be done legally. "While IGs aren't immune from committing acts requiring their removal, and they can be removed by the president, the law must be followed. IGs are critical to rooting out waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct within the Executive Branch bureaucracy, which you have publicly made clear you are also intent on doing," they wrote. The lawsuit alleges violations of a 2022 federal law requiring 30 days notice for the firings. The law also requires substantial and specific rationale for the firings. That law amended the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, according to the lawsuit. "Just four days into his current term, however, President Trump, acting through a two-sentence email sent by the director or deputy director of the Office of Presidential Personnel, purported to remove from office (supposedly on account of "changing priorities") nearly a score of IGs (while retaining only two cabinet-level IGs)," the lawsuit said. The lawsuit said Trump's claims that the firings were "common" or "standard" were false. The suit asserts that "in the last four decades, no incoming President has attempted upon taking office to remove en masse the IGs appointed in prior administrations." The suit names the heads of the federal agencies for "preventing plaintiffs from carrying out their official duties and acting to cease payment of plaintiffs for their work as IGs." The suit seeks injunctive relief and a finding that the firings violate the IG Act. The inspectors general also seek a ruling that plaintiffs remain as the lawful IGs of their respective agencies.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ex-inspector general on Trump firings: ‘We're looking at what amounts to a threat to democracy'
Hannibal 'Mike' Ware, the former inspector general (IG) for the Small Business Administration, said he and others are looking into whether actions taken by President Trump amount to a threat to democracy. Ware, along with other inspectors general, were fired by Trump on Friday. The late-night firings may be in violation of federal law that states the president must give Congress a 30-day notice of his intent to remove an inspector general, and they have also raised concerns for what it means for the government to go without the independent internal watchdogs. 'We're looking at what amounts to a threat to democracy, a threat to independent oversight and a threat to transparency in government,' Ware said Monday on MSNBC. Ware, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said the 30-day notice to Congress is a 'key protection' of the independence afforded to inspectors general. He highlighted the 1978 Inspector General Act and its protections for the watchdogs. 'You can't decide I'm not going to follow that part of the IG Act, but oh, I'm going to follow the part that allows IGs to have full and unfettered access to all agencies, records and personnel,' he said, later adding that 'we might as well not have an Inspector General Act at all.' Ware argued that the president removed people who were not aligned with his mission. U.S. Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who works under the Justice Department, was spared from the firings. 'For years, we have been viewed as nonpartisan, nonpolitical,' Ware said. 'What's happening right now is historic in that this has never happened before.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Inspector general dismissed by Trump calls mass firings a threat to democracy
A former inspector general (IG) who was dismissed on Friday said President Donald Trump's decision to fire 17 independent watchdogs at various federal agencies constitutes a "threat to democracy" and government transparency. Trump dismissed IGs at agencies within the Defense Department, State Department, Energy Department, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Veterans Affairs, and more, notifying them by email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office, the Washington Post first reported. Mike Ware, who served as the chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, told MSNBC's "Ana Cabrera Reports" that he and other federal watchdogs were informed of their firing via email on Friday. 'Flooding The Zone' Trump Hits Warp Speed In First Week Back In Office Ware said it was "alarming" that the Trump administration had fired them over what he described as "changing priorities"—noting that IGs are not part of any administration and merely ensure there is no fraud, waste and abuse in how taxpayer funds are expended. In 2022, Congress passed reforms that strengthened protections for IGs and made it harder to replace them with political appointees, requiring the president to explain their removal. Read On The Fox News App Ware suggested that Trump failed to provide a comprehensive reason for the mass firings and may have potentially violated the protections afforded by the reforms. Trump's Federal Dei Purge Puts Hundreds On Leave, Nixes $420M In Contracts "We're looking at what amounts to a threat to democracy, a threat to independent oversight and a threat to transparency in government. This is no doubt. The statute isn't just a technicality, it's a key protection of IG independence is what it is," Ware said. He also claimed that the U.S. government might as well not have an independent oversight mechanism if the new administration only adheres to the IG Act in a "piecemeal manner." The mass firing is Trump's latest attempt to force the federal bureaucracy into submission after he shut down diversity, equity and inclusion programs, rescinded job offers and sidelined more than 150 national security and foreign policy officials. Click Here For The Latest Media And Culture News Trump began his second term with the intent of purging any opponents of his agenda from the government and replacing them with officials who would execute his orders without hesitation. During his first term, Trump fired four IGs in less than two months in 2020. This included the State Department, whose inspector general had played a role in the president's impeachment proceedings. Fox News' Chris Pandolfo and Lucas Y. Tomlinson contributed to this article source: Inspector general dismissed by Trump calls mass firings a threat to democracy
