President Donald Trump put into motion long-held plans to revamp the government watchdogs that oversee federal agencies, especially after members of Congress have repeatedly raised concerns about the watchdog offices covering for their agencies instead of facilitating accountability.
The move is likely to result in a court battle as alarmed critics warned the termination of nearly 20 of the inspectors general was “illegal” and would undermine independent oversight. A new law passed on a bipartisan basis in 2022 requires notification to Congress if a president plans to fire an inspector general, which congressional leaders say Trump did not provide.
A day after the move, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he terminated the watchdogs because “it’s a very common thing to do,” and noting that “not all of them” were fired.
“I don’t know them, but some people thought that some were unfair or were not doing the job. It’s a very standard thing to do,” Trump said.
Congressional Republicans have recently raised concerns about the independence of the inspector general offices after facing pushback on oversight probes during the Biden Administration, which may be the criticism that Trump is latching on to.
Questioning independence
In December, the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight raised concerns in a report from its investigation of Jan. 6 security failures about the independence of the watchdog agencies after the Department of Defense Inspector General refused to provide materials to Congress amid political interference from the Secretary of Defense’s office.
Chairman Barry Loudermilk’s committee first approached the DOD’s IG Robert Storch to request an unredacted version of the agency’s review of the Pentagon’s role and responsibilities as it related to security failures on January 6. The report was widely criticized by several D.C. National Guardsmen-turned-whistleblowers, who excoriated Pentagon leadership for whitewashing their failures. Storch also declined to furnish the witness interview transcripts that Loudermilk had requested.
Eventually, the OIG consented to allow the committee to review a “minimally redacted” version of the report and witness transcripts in camera—in house—but they could not obtain copies for themselves.
During the process of negotiating the in-camera review, the subcommittee noted that the DOD OIG copied the Secretary of Defense’s staff on emails to the subcommittee, which the report noted was strange.
When the time came to review the document, certain subcommittee staff were restricted from accessing the document by the Secretary of Defense’s office, the report says.
“It is extremely concerning and inappropriate for the exact entity which the Inspector General is tasked with overseeing obstructs or influences the investigative process and communications,” the subcommittee concluded in its report.
Members of Congress also raised separate concerns about the interference by the Department of Homeland Security into the inspector general’s office. Loudermilk, along with Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, outlined allegations that the department restricted its internal watchdog arm from conducting proper investigations and requested "improper redactions" in reports to Congress.
"As Members of Congress who value and expect transparency and accountability within the federal government, we are very troubled by all instances where we receive heavily redacted reports," the pair wrote, Just the News previously reported.
Their concerns were spurred by a DHS letter earlier this month stating that there must be "appropriate safeguards" on any information that the inspector general’s office would provide to Congress as well as directing "sensitivity reviews" on reports from the OIG for national security reasons. Grassley and Loudermilk said Congress should not be restricted from receiving any information from the agency.
Please read more at the below link: