In Washington, eight inspectors general have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging their recent mass dismissal, which they argue has eliminated crucial oversight of President Donald Trump’s administration. The suit, submitted on Wednesday, seeks a judicial ruling to deem the firings unlawful and aims to reinstate the inspectors general to their respective positions within various government agencies.
The inspectors general are responsible for identifying and addressing waste, fraud, and abuse within federal agencies, and they play a crucial nonpartisan role in overseeing vast amounts of federal expenditure and the actions of countless federal employees. Their dismissal, according to the lawsuit, was carried out without the legally required 30-day advance notice to Congress, a procedural step that was highlighted by even some Republican lawmakers.
The Trump administration dismissed over a dozen inspectors general in an abrupt move during the early days of his second term. While inspectors general are appointed by the president, many serve across party lines, and all are expected to maintain nonpartisan operations. Notably, two of the impacted plaintiffs had previously been nominated by Trump during his first term as president.
Michael Missal, former inspector general for the Department of Veterans Affairs, stated, “The firing of the independent, nonpartisan inspector general was a clear violation of the law.” He emphasized that the inspectors general initiated the legal action to reclaim their positions and resume their roles in combating waste, fraud, and abuse on behalf of the American public.
In response to the terminations, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa noted that while reasons for dismissals might exist, the rationale should be communicated to Congress. The lawsuit follows closely on the heels of the administration’s decision to remove the inspector general from the U.S. Agency for International Development, who had alerted them that the agency’s restructuring posed significant challenges to supervising $8.2 billion in unallocated humanitarian assistance.
The office of the inspector general was established in the wake of the Watergate scandal, with Congress tasked to ensure independent oversight within federal agencies to guard against the misuse of power and mismanagement. Critics, particularly from the Democratic side and various watchdog organizations, have raised concerns that these dismissals indicate moves by Trump to undermine government accountability and oversight.
Trump, while defending the firings at the time, remarked that such actions were commonplace. However, the lawsuit counters this assertion, claiming that mass dismissals by a president have long been viewed as improper since the 1980s. The terminations were communicated through nearly identical emails from the Office of Presidential Personnel, leading to a rapid collection of the dismissed officials’ access to government resources. They were escorted to gather their personal belongings under supervision, as stated in the lawsuit.
Interestingly, the inspector general from the Agriculture Department continued her work after receiving notice of her dismissal, perceiving the notification as ineffective. Following her aware of the situation, she held meetings until her access was revoked.
In previous instances, Trump has been known to challenge the authority of inspectors general. During his first term in 2020, he replaced multiple inspectors, including those overseeing the Defense Department and intelligence community, as well as those appointed to oversee a special body for managing relief funds for the pandemic.
The latest firings did not include Michael Horowitz, the long-serving inspector general from the Justice Department, who has produced significant reports regarding politically sensitive investigations in recent years. For example, in a December 2019 report, Horowitz criticized the FBI for its warrant applications linked to the investigation of alleged connections between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign, while also affirming that the investigation had been initiated for valid reasons.
The lawsuit was brought forth by inspectors general from the departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, State, Education, Agriculture, Labor, and the Small Business Administration.
