A retired senior diplomat, Ken Hillas is an adjunct professor at the University of Maine’s School of Policy and International Affairs. He served as a senior inspector in the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General. The views expressed in the article are those of the author alone and not of the University of Maine.
Late last month, President Donald Trump fired 17 inspectors general (IGs) without citing a cause and in contravention of the relevant legal requirements and his own practice during his first term. He explained to reporters “I did it because it’s a very common thing to do.” In fact, his was the only mass firing in more than 40 years. It breached the requirements of the Inspector General Act, which requires a 30-day advance notice to Congress of the president’s intention to fire an IG and the reasons for the dismissal.
So why are there IGs and what do they do? By law, the IGs conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of USG agencies; provide recommendations to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of U.S. agencies and to prevent and detect fraud and abuse. They are permitted unfettered access to the records of agencies and are assured access to interview agency employees.
The law’s overall purpose is “to provide a means for keeping the head of the establishment (agency) and the Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies.” According to Max Stier, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, “Their [IGs’] work saves the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars every year.”
The accountability of IGs to Congress was an issue when Ronald Reagan fired 15 IGs soon after taking office in 1981. In the face of a broad bipartisan reaction from Congress that the law establishing IGs was not intended to include large-scale firings with a change of administration, Reagan hired back five of the fired IGs. Since then presidents, of course, have fired individual IGs. In 2020, Trump fired the State Department’s IG, Steve Linick, at Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s request at a time when the IG was looking into the secretary’s misuse of an employee at the Department to perform personal tasks for himself and Mrs. Pompeo. But he gave Congress the required 30-day notice.
By law, IGs are accountable to Congress as well as the president and the reports are made public, a provision of the law that irked President Trump in 2018. He told Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan he did not want the IG audit reports on Afghanistan reconstruction to be made public, despite the legal requirement aimed at ensuring accountability through transparency.
The independence of IGs is a cornerstone of combating waste, fraud, corruption and criminal activity. Congress provided that Inspectors General should be selected “without regard to political affiliation” and “solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability” in fields like financial management, law, and public administration.
The chairperson of the Council of the Inspectors General, Mike Ware, himself an appointee of President Trump during his first term, informed the White House that the council “does not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed inspectors general.”
The big question is whether, like in 1981, Congress will push back and defend its institutional interests in checking the powers of the president. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, the longest serving U.S. senator, said “I’d like further explanation from President Trump. Regardless, the 30-day detailed notice of removal that the law demands was not provided to Congress.”
If the Republican-controlled Congress accepts that this mass dismissal was just a needed “house cleaning,” they can expect Trump to ignore other legislative guard rails. The public signs are not encouraging so far. And unlike President Reagan, Trump is not likely to back down.
