Latest news with #InspectorGeneralActof1978
Bloomberg
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
How the SEC Responded to Trump's Inspectors General Purge
Welcome back to FOIA Files! Just four days after President Donald Trump's inauguration, he fired several agency watchdogs—inspectors general—that investigate claims of waste, fraud and abuse in federal spending. Since then, I've sent Freedom of Information Act requests to nearly every agency that has an office of inspector general to find out exactly who was fired and what the response was to the dismissals. The Securities and Exchange Commission responded with a couple dozen pages of documents that reveal how the regulator prepared for the possibility that its own inspector general would be next (she was spared). Plus, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing earlier this week on the state of the FOIA. If you're not already getting FOIA Files in your inbox, sign up here. Inspectors general, or IGs, are a vital part of the federal bureaucracy. Former President Jimmy Carter signed the Inspector General Act of 1978 that introduced IGs in the executive branch. Half of the 73 IGs are appointed by the president, while the rest are appointed by the head of each agency. The law says the president can remove any presidential appointees, but only after a 30-day notification is provided to Congress.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge tells government watchdogs fired by Trump there's not much she can do for them
Eight inspectors general abruptly fired by President Donald Trump at the start of his second term appeared in federal court Thursday to challenge their dismissals — a long-shot case that nonetheless sparked fireworks during oral arguments. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes acknowledged on Thursday that it would be difficult for the court to reinstate the eight ousted inspectors generals, who were part of a broader group of 17 government watchdogs abruptly terminated by Trump in January, just four days into his second White House term. In a lawsuit last month, the eight inspectors general challenged their firings as both "unlawful and unjustified" and asked to be reinstated — a remedy that Reyes acknowledged Thursday would be exceedingly difficult, even if she were to find that their firings were unconstitutional. "Unless you convince me otherwise," she told the plaintiffs, "I don't see how I could reinstate the inspectors general" to their roles. Axed Government Watchdog Says Trump Has Right To Fire Him Reyes suggested that the best the court could do would be to order back pay, even as she told both parties, "I don't think anyone can contest that the removal of these people — the way that they were fired — was a violation of the law." Read On The Fox News App The preliminary injunction hearing comes more than a month after the eight fired inspectors general filed a lawsuit challenging their termination as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs asked the judge to restore them to their positions, noting in the filing, "President 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." Still, the remedies are considered a long shot — and Trump supporters have argued that the president was well within his executive branch powers to make such personnel decisions under Article II of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and updates to federal policy. Lawsuit Tracker: New Resistance Battling Trump's Second Term Through Onslaught Of Lawsuits Taking Aim At Eos In 2022, Congress updated its Inspector General Act of 1978, which formerly required a president to communicate to Congress any "reasons" for terminations 30 days before any decision was made. That notice provision was amended in 2022 to require only a "substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons" for terminations. The 30-day period was a major focus of Thursday's hearing, as the court weighed whether inspectors general can be considered "principal" or inferior officers. The White House Director of Presidential Personnel has claimed that the firings are in line with that requirement, which were a reflection of "changing priorities" from within the administration. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, suggested earlier this year that Congress should be given more information as to the reasons for the firings, though more recently he has declined to elaborate on the matter. Reyes, for her part, previously did not appear to be moved by the plaintiffs' bid for emergency relief. She declined to grant their earlier request for a temporary restraining order — a tough legal test that requires plaintiffs to prove "irreparable" and immediate harm as a result of the actions — and told both parties during the hearing that, barring new or revelatory information, she is not inclined to rule in favor of plaintiffs at the larger preliminary injunction article source: Judge tells government watchdogs fired by Trump there's not much she can do for them
Fox News
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Judge tells government watchdogs fired by Trump there's not much she can do for them
Eight inspectors general abruptly fired by President Donald Trump at the start of his second term appeared in federal court Thursday to challenge their dismissals — a long-shot case that nonetheless sparked fireworks during oral arguments. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes acknowledged on Thursday that it would be difficult for the court to reinstate the eight ousted inspectors generals, who were part of a broader group of 17 government watchdogs abruptly terminated by Trump in January, just four days into his second White House term. In a lawsuit last month, the eight inspectors general challenged their firings as both "unlawful and unjustified" and asked to be reinstated – a remedy that Reyes acknowledged Thursday would be exceedingly difficult, even if she were to find that their firings were unconstitutional. "Unless you convince me otherwise," she told the plaintiffs, "I don't see how I could reinstate the inspectors general" to their roles. Reyes suggested that the best the court could do would be to order back pay, even as she told both parties, "I don't think anyone can contest that the removal of these people – the way that they were fired – was a violation of the law." The preliminary injunction hearing comes more than a month after the eight fired inspectors general filed a lawsuit challenging their termination as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs asked the judge to restore them to their positions, noting in the filing, "President 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." Still, the remedies are considered a long shot – and Trump supporters have argued that the president was well within his executive branch powers to make such personnel decisions under Article II of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and updates to federal policy. In 2022, Congress updated its Inspector General Act of 1978, which formerly required a president to communicate to Congress any "reasons" for terminations 30 days before any decision was made. That notice provision was amended in 2022 to require only a "substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons" for terminations. The 30-day period was a major focus of Thursday's hearing, as the court weighed whether inspectors general can be considered "principal" or inferior officers. The White House Director of Presidential Personnel has claimed that the firings are in line with that requirement, which were a reflection of "changing priorities" from within the administration. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, suggested earlier this year that Congress should be given more information as to the reasons for the firings, though more recently he has declined to elaborate on the matter. Reyes, for her part, previously did not appear to be moved by the plaintiffs' bid for emergency relief. She declined to grant their earlier request for a temporary restraining order – a tough legal test that requires plaintiffs to prove "irreparable" and immediate harm as a result of the actions – and told both parties during the hearing that, barring new or revelatory information, she is not inclined to rule in favor of plaintiffs at the larger preliminary injunction hearing.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Independent government oversight is dying
When the autopsy is conducted, the time of death for independent oversight of government agencies will be noted as 7:48 p.m. on Friday, Jan. 24, 2025. That was when 17 inspectors general — presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed — across the federal government were sacked from their positions in the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies due to 'changing priorities.' Apart from questions about procedural legality, the dismissals sent a chilling message to federal inspectors general across government: The more than 45 years of bipartisan support for independent oversight — oversight that has demonstrably improved government services and saved billions of taxpayer dollars — may be coming to an end. Inspectors general work inside federal agencies to improve government efficiency and effectiveness through audits, inspections and investigations. But in order to speak hard truths to leaders about agency shortcomings, they rely on their authorities under the Inspector General Act of 1978. That law grants them independence from their agency head, financial independence through a separate appropriation, access to all agency information and personnel and an ability to review any issue they choose. And, at least in the past, they relied on strong support from Congress. The civilian inspector general concept was derived in part from the military, where an inspector general provided an independent review of troop readiness. Over the last four decades, the number of inspectors general expanded from the original 12 to 74, and they operate within agencies large and small as independent units to combat waste, fraud and abuse. Half the inspectors general, those in the Cabinet departments and larger agencies, are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, while the other half are appointed by agency heads. Apart from the first presidential transition in 1980 after passage of the Inspector General Act, inspectors general have been recognized as apolitical professionals who were not required to submit their resignations during changes in administrations. I worked as an inspector general at two different agencies and as deputy inspector general at a third. Our offices relied on these statutory authorities to deliver unsolicited and at times unpopular findings — like when we reported that the cost for a mobile platform needed to launch NASA's next-generation rocket, first estimated at less than $400 million, had ballooned to more than $1.2 billion. Bechtel, the prime contractor on the project, likely did not want to read about its project management failures in a public inspector general audit. Nor did NASA leadership. But Congress needed this information to help it conduct effective oversight and pressure agency leaders to improve their management of the project. In the aftermath of the Trump administration's widespread firings, however, inspectors general may be hesitant to issue unflattering findings about agency programs — a dynamic that cuts to the core of the job. Which brings us back to the state of independent, evidence-based oversight of federal agencies. Since the January terminations, Congress has largely absented itself from the conversation about the role inspectors general play in reviewing government programs. This failure to meaningfully defend the oversight system that Congress itself created will redound to its detriment now and in the future. In the short term, inspectors general — unsure of congressional receptivity to critical findings — may be hesitant to undertake such oversight or, if they do, may temper their message from the full-throated way the facts would otherwise dictate. In the longer term, the nation may have crossed a threshold to a new era in which every incoming administration replaces inspectors general with candidates of their choosing — a world in which each attorney general or secretary of the Treasury gets to hire his or her own inspector general. But if the new litmus test is whether inspectors general embrace a particular administration's governing philosophy or policy priorities, then we have lost a proven, professional and apolitical tool to inform Congress and the public about the effectiveness of their investments in federal government programs. And that is a great loss. Paul K. Martin served for more than 25 years in the federal oversight community as inspector general at USAID and NASA and deputy inspector general at the Department of Justice. He was fired by email on Feb. 11, 2025. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
12-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Independent government oversight is dying
When the autopsy is conducted, the time of death for independent oversight of government agencies will be noted as 7:48 p.m. on Friday, Jan. 24, 2025. That was when 17 inspectors general — presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed — across the federal government were sacked from their positions in the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies due to 'changing priorities.' Apart from questions about procedural legality, the dismissals sent a chilling message to federal inspectors general across government: The more than 45 years of bipartisan support for independent oversight — oversight that has demonstrably improved government services and saved billions of taxpayer dollars — may be coming to an end. Inspectors general work inside federal agencies to improve government efficiency and effectiveness through audits, inspections and investigations. But in order to speak hard truths to leaders about agency shortcomings, they rely on their authorities under the Inspector General Act of 1978. That law grants them independence from their agency head, financial independence through a separate appropriation, access to all agency information and personnel and an ability to review any issue they choose. And, at least in the past, they relied on strong support from Congress. The civilian inspector general concept was derived in part from the military, where an inspector general provided an independent review of troop readiness. Over the last four decades, the number of inspectors general expanded from the original 12 to 74, and they operate within agencies large and small as independent units to combat waste, fraud and abuse. Half the inspectors general, those in the Cabinet departments and larger agencies, are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, while the other half are appointed by agency heads. Apart from the first presidential transition in 1980 after passage of the Inspector General Act, inspectors general have been recognized as apolitical professionals who were not required to submit their resignations during changes in administrations. I worked as an inspector general at two different agencies and as deputy inspector general at a third. Our offices relied on these statutory authorities to deliver unsolicited and at times unpopular findings — like when we reported that the cost for a mobile platform needed to launch NASA's next-generation rocket, first estimated at less than $400 million, had ballooned to more than $1.2 billion. Bechtel, the prime contractor on the project, likely did not want to read about its project management failures in a public inspector general audit. Nor did NASA leadership. But Congress needed this information to help it conduct effective oversight and pressure agency leaders to improve their management of the project. In the aftermath of the Trump administration's widespread firings, however, inspectors general may be hesitant to issue unflattering findings about agency programs — a dynamic that cuts to the core of the job. Which brings us back to the state of independent, evidence-based oversight of federal agencies. Since the January terminations, Congress has largely absented itself from the conversation about the role inspectors general play in reviewing government programs. This failure to meaningfully defend the oversight system that Congress itself created will redound to its detriment now and in the future. In the short term, inspectors general — unsure of congressional receptivity to critical findings — may be hesitant to undertake such oversight or, if they do, may temper their message from the full-throated way the facts would otherwise dictate. In the longer term, the nation may have crossed a threshold to a new era in which every incoming administration replaces inspectors general with candidates of their choosing — a world in which each attorney general or secretary of the Treasury gets to hire his or her own inspector general. But if the new litmus test is whether inspectors general embrace a particular administration's governing philosophy or policy priorities, then we have lost a proven, professional and apolitical tool to inform Congress and the public about the effectiveness of their investments in federal government programs. And that is a great loss. Paul K. Martin served for more than 25 years in the federal oversight community as inspector general at USAID and NASA and deputy inspector general at the Department of Justice. He was fired by email on Feb. 11, 2025.
