Several former inspectors general have spoken out about the importance of independent oversight following President Donald Trump's decision to fire more than a dozen active IGs during the first days of his administration.
Trump fired 17 inspectors general during his first days in office, eight of whom have filed a lawsuit claiming that the president broke the law when he attempted to fire them without justifying their removal or giving Congress 30-day notices.
The former inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Michael Missal, is a part of the lawsuit, and he told CBS News, "My only guess could be they're trying to impact the independence that IGs have, because it makes no sense."
Similarly, Robert Storch, the former Department of Defense inspector general who is also part of the lawsuit, told ABC News that it "sends a message that this sort of independent oversight is something that's not desired when, in fact, it's incredibly important for the American people."
An inspector general is an oversight position in the federal government and serves to audit whichever agency he or she is housed in. These are nonpartisan appointees and can only be removed by the president.
Diana Shaw, who served as the acting State Department inspector general until April 2024, told the Washington Examiner that there is no alternative body for government bodies to utilize should the inspectors general no longer be a trusted source of apolitical oversight.
“The entire function of an OIG is its apolitical, nonpartisan, independent status. It is the currency of an OIG. Once an IG is perceived as in the pocket of or beholden to a particular political party or a particular department leader, the value of the work that comes out of that office is significantly diminished because you can't trust whether it's unbiased, whether it's objective," she added.
"If you don't have a trusted source for that information, there's really nowhere else that you can get that in government, and if that tap runs dry, my goodness, I don't know what that means for informed decision-making going forward," she explained. "So, I think you can't understate what is at stake here if this just becomes another political appointment like every other one in government."
The president is required by law to provide 30 days’ notice to Congress before firing an inspector general and provide case-specific reasons for getting rid of him or her, which the Senate Judiciary Committee has acknowledged did not happen. This is the basis for the lawsuit.
Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), the chairman and ranking member of the committee, sent a letter to Trump requesting that he explain the recent firings.
Grassley and Durbin demanded the administration send "case-specific reasons for removal" and said the explanation for each firing must contain “more than just broad and vague statements, rather it must include sufficient facts and the details to assure Congress and the public that the termination is due to real concerns about the Inspector General’s ability to carry out their mission.”
The president dismissed another inspector general this week, the inspector general of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the day after the inspector general released a report discussing the waste that has incurred due to the administration's effort to dismantle the agency altogether.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Trump's picks to replace the inspectors general he fired will need Senate confirmation.
If Trump appoints qualified inspectors general, "then there should be no basis for a [future] Democratic administration to come in and remove them simply because they were put in place by President Trump, and I would hope that a Democratic administration wouldn't do that if they're performing their jobs in an objective way," Shaw added.