Latest news with #InspectorGeneralAct
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
How to Tyranny-Proof America's Future
COMPARED TO HIS PREDECESSORS, Donald Trump has moved faster and on a much larger scale to target individuals, categories of people, and organizations for reasons personal (think 'revenge tour') and political (think mass deportations, attacks on law firms). If a future Congress ever wants to prevent a repeat of these kinds of abuses, there are many specific reforms that should be enacted. But it's not enough to focus narrowly on Trump's actions. The presidents who came before him set their own precedents and examples—often affirmed by Congress and the courts—that have also contributed to the present breakdown of our constitutional order. If Congress and the courts had not ceded so much raw, coercive power to the presidency, we might not now be facing a chief executive busily subverting the few remaining meaningful constitutional safeguards separating a republic from a tyranny. To think more clearly about how Congress must act to provide independence to both law enforcement and the judiciary, let's start with a turbo-speed history lesson. In my new book, The Triumph of Fear, I catalogue a sixty-year period from William McKinley through Dwight Eisenhower in which, with perhaps the sole exception of Warren Harding, every man elected to the presidency misused the power handed to him to spy on and even politically persecute his political enemies—real or imagined. Share Following the exposure in the 1970s of many unconstitutional government-run surveillance and subversion programs, Congress passed multiple reforms to try to prevent future presidents from engaging in such abusive conduct. Unfortunately, every one of those 1970s-era reforms—be it the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Inspector General Act, or the creation of the House and Senate intelligence committees—has failed to prevent presidential misconduct. The underlying assumption when they were adopted—that future presidents would find it difficult to work around or subvert them—was false. Trump's attacks on the federal judiciary stretch back to his first term in office and have only increased during the first months of his second term. His invocation of the two-century-old Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for lightning-fast, due process–free mass deportation operations is best thought of as a 'proof of concept' of his playbook for authoritarian consolidation in the presidency at the expense of Congress, the courts, and ultimately the Constitution itself. Trump's ongoing defiance of court orders in the AEA cases is reinforced by the willingness—if not eagerness—of federal law enforcement agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the FBI, and even federally deputized state and local law enforcement officers to carry out his deportation orders despite multiple federal court rulings to the contrary. Which brings to mind one area where Trump hasn't yet abused his power—but he might. Let us help you see around corners: Sign up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription to get our independent journalism delivered to your inbox. Under current law, all federal law enforcement officers fall under the control of the executive branch, including the United States Marshals Service, which is charged by statute with protecting both court facilities and staff (especially judges). But what if Trump's attorney general, Pam Bondi, elected to declare that statute unconstitutional? What if Bondi asserted that Trump could, at his discretion, order the marshals to leave their judicial-protection duties and instead join ICE, HSI, FBI, and other law enforcement on mass deportation operations? An Office of Legal Counsel opinion, written during the Jimmy Carter administration and updated during the Obama administration, asserts that, 'While there is no general privilege in the Executive to disregard laws that it deems inconsistent with the Constitution, in rare cases the Executive's duty to the constitutional system may require action in defiance of a statute. In such a case, the Executive's refusal to defend and enforce an unconstitutional statute is authorized and lawful.' That OLC opinion, accepted by every one of Trump's predecessors over the last forty-five years, could provide Trump and Bondi with at least a fig leaf of bipartisan political and legal cover to reduce or eliminate marshals protection for judges Trump deems 'radical' or otherwise objectionable. This threat has prompted some members of Congress to propose a solution designed to provide protection for judges that Trump or any of his successors could never remove. Shortly before the Memorial Day holiday, Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Alex Padilla (D-Cal.), and Adam Schiff (D-Cal.), along with Representatives Eric Swalwell (D-Cal.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), introduced the MARSHALS Act, legislation that would move the Marshals Service out of the executive branch and place it under the control of the federal judiciary. It's a great idea that has zero chance of becoming law this session—but it demonstrates that at least some Senate and House members are willing to remove some of the armed, coercive law enforcement power currently under presidential control. That alone is a mental and political breakthrough that all those loyal to the constitutional republic should embrace. Share The Bulwark THE MARSHALS ACT IS JUST ONE example of the kind of legislative action that needs to be taken to prevent future presidential domestic political repression. Many other changes are needed as well; law professors, political activists, and commentators on constitutional matters are all likely to have their own lists of needful reforms—most of which will boil down to taking away the tools that make repression possible. My preference, as someone who has closely studied the abuses arising from presidential control of law enforcement, would be for a constitutional amendment that would move all but two federal law enforcement organizations from the executive branch to the control of the federal judiciary. The Secret Service (which protects the president and vice president) and the Federal Protective Service (which secures most federal buildings) would remain in the executive branch, but all other federal law enforcement would come under the control of the federal judiciary . . . and thus outside the control of an inherently political branch of government. Such a constitutional amendment should also modify current law to ensure that no president can call up a state's National Guard units for 'civil disturbance,' immigration enforcement, or any other domestic mission without the express written consent of the state's governor. This would safeguard against a future president calling up National Guard troops to shoot political protesters, as Trump wanted to do in the summer of 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests. Such an amendment would go far to restore and preserve our constitutional republic. But it would unquestionably be a very heavy political lift, to put it mildly. In the meantime, advocates should start laying the groundwork—doing the necessary research and drafting legislative language—for congressional action on other reforms, such as strengthening search and seizure protections, setting national training standards for all law enforcement officers, and creating a meaningful private right of action for police misconduct. Absent a dramatic (perhaps tragic) major political event, it's all but impossible to imagine any of these proposals becoming law while Trump is still in office. But introducing them now is critical for building support for them so that once he's out of office and a new Congress committed to preserving the constitutional order is in place, it can act quickly, while the memory of Trumpian abuses is fresh, to prevent a recurrence. We owe that to ourselves and to generations to come. Share
04-06-2025
- Business
Democrats accuse McMahon of stonewalling Department of Education IG
Congressional Democrats are demanding that Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon cooperate with the agency's Office of Inspector General review of the Trump administration's efforts to overhaul the agency. In a letter first obtained by ABC News, a group of Democrats on the Education, Oversight, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Appropriations committees in the House and Senate sent the secretary a letter accusing her of stonewalling the agency's inspectors general. "The OIG must be allowed to do its job,' they wrote. 'We urge the Department to immediately meet its obligation under the law to fully comply with the OIG's review,' the letter said. 'Congress and the public need to understand the full extent and impact of the Administration's actions on the Department and the students, families, and educational communities it may no longer be able to serve." ABC News reached out for comment from the Department of Education on the allegations but did not receive an immediate reply. McMahon will face these questions in person when she testifies before the House Education and Workforce Committee on Wednesday. The letter stems from what McMahon calls her 'final mission' as the 13th education secretary to shutter the department, and the administration's first steps to diminish the agency through a reduction in force that slashed nearly half its staff in early March. The lawmakers are requesting a response no later than Friday. After several attempts to conduct its review over the last two months, an OIG letter said the prolonged had resulted in 'unreasonable denials' and 'repeated delays' to its work. According to a recent OIG letter sent to the House and Senate committee members, the Education Department blocked it from 'timely access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other materials available to the department.' House Education and Workforce Committee ranking Democrat Bobby Scott told ABC News, 'I think the fact that they have indicated that there is a lack of cooperation ought to be concerning to people when inspectors general can't do their jobs.' The OIG contends its 'statutory mission' to oversee the changes at the department under the Inspector General Act have been impeded. 'Our review has been delayed by the refusal of the Department to provide the OIG with a majority of the information and documents requested or direct access to staff for interviews,' acting Inspector General René L. Rocque wrote last month in a letter fulfilling her dual reporting requirement. The department has canceled scheduled OIG interviews with its staff and insists that an Office of the General Counsel lawyer be present for any rescheduled interviews, according to the OIG. The OIG alleges those requests from the department are unprecedented and contrary to the OIG's longstanding practice. The OIG office is the statutory, independent entity within the department responsible for identifying fraud, waste, abuse and criminal activity involving department funds, programs, and operations, according to its website. By denying the federal watchdog access to the department's records, the lawmakers believe McMahon is failing to meet her obligation as an agency head. There is no basis to withhold department documents from the OIG regardless of the privileged nature of the information or if it's subject to litigation, the OIG said. The news comes as McMahon testifies before Congress on the agency's priorities and policies, specifically calling for a $12 billion cut to education under President Donald Trump's fiscal year 2026 budget outline. McMahon has stressed she will continue all statutory functions of the agency and work to abolish it in a 'lawful fashion.' Ahead of his committee's hearing with McMahon, Scott said, 'We hear all these pronouncements about what's going to happen. What is the plan? They've acknowledged they can't get rid of the Department of Education without legislation. Are they supporting legislation?' Democrats, including Scott, have decried the administration's work force reductions, particularly the impact the layoffs could pose to the department's critical responsibilities such as administering Federal Student Aid services and ensuring students' civil rights. Their three-page letter to McMahon claims states have experienced delays in accessing relevant portals to receive federal funding, college financial aid advisors have experienced significant delays in getting answers from FSA personnel, parents with pending Office for Civil Rights OCR cases have been left in the dark. 'When they have all these cases of discrimination in the Office for Civil Rights enforcing Title VI, including anti semitism, how is the job going to get done if you fired most of the staff in the Office of Civil Rights?' Scott said. 'If the inspector general can't get an answer, then oversight is lost,' he added.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - These inspector general nominees serve their own political interests, not America's
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. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
02-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
These inspector general nominees serve their own political interests, not America's
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.
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.
