SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
inspectors general
'Now We Know Why Trump Fired the Inspector General at Social Security,' Says Watchdog Group
New revelations show an IG report about wait times for people seeking help or services was altered after it was submitted to the administration.
Mar 19, 2026
A Social Security advocacy organization on Thursday blasted the Trump administration for covering up damaging information contained in an inspector general report released in December.
According to The Washington Post, a report from the Social Security Administration's (SSA) inspector general (IG) about call wait times for beneficiaries was altered to make it seem as though wait times to speak to representatives had been reduced to under 10 minutes per call.
"An unpublished draft of the report... showed that the inspector general had planned to report another metric—called the 'total wait time'—to measure the overall time it takes for callers to be connected with an SSA employee," the Post explained. "According to that draft report, in 2025 total wait time averaged 46 minutes to over two hours."
The Post added that this "information was deleted from the draft after the agency reviewed it before publication."
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, responded to the report by saying that "now we know why [President Donald] Trump fired the inspector general at Social Security," noting that the SSA IG was one of several fired across multiple agencies at the start of Trump's second term.
Altman then argued that the attack on inspectors general was part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to dismantle government transparency all together.
"Inspectors general are the American peoples’ eyes and ears in these agencies," said Altman. "The Trump administration is undermining that oversight at every turn. Under this administration, the IG has no ability to conduct independent oversight. There is no meaningful check on the Trump administration’s Social Security sabotage."
Democratic communications consultant Jesse Lee linked the damage to the SSA documented in the draft IG report to efforts by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which went on a firing spree of federal workers last year.
"So DOGE did a smash and grab at the Social Security Administration, breaking into the most sensitive data, firing phone and in-person case workers," Lee wrote. "Trump appointee waved around an IG report claiming wait times were fine—after burying the real report saying they were up to two hours."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pete Hegseth Can't Handle the Truth
Trump's secretary of war is trying to make it harder for inspectors general and reporters to investigate what's really going on at the Pentagon.
Oct 17, 2025
On September 30, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth pontificated before his captive audience of 800 admirals and generals whom he had summoned from locations around the globe. The media reports of the event focused on soundbites: new physical fitness requirements, grooming standards (“no more beardos”—but don’t tell Vice President JD Vance or the president’s son), eliminating “woke” policies, and other elements of his department’s new “warfighting culture.”
Observing that the military's policy on “hazing, bullying, and harassment is overly broad,” Hegseth also said that the inspector general’s office “has been weaponized, putting complainers, ideologues, and poor performers in the driver’s seat.”
He dealt with that problem too.
Hegseth’s New Rules of Engagement: No. 1—Avoid Accountability
As with all IGs, the Defense Department’s inspector general operates independently to assure government accountability. The office pursues waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, mismanagement, whistleblower complaints, and more. With Hegseth in charge, its plate is full.
As Hegseth railed against the IG, it was investigating Signalgate—his massive national security breach. On March 15, he had used the Signal app to discuss with top Pentagon leaders the detailed plans for an imminent attack on Houthis in Yemen. But the chat mistakenly included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. Another Signal chat that day involving similarly sensitive information included his wife, brother, and personal lawyer.
On September 30, Hegseth published new rules for inspector general investigations, including:
- Within seven days of a complaint, an investigation must be initiated or the complaint closed;
- An investigation can “be initiated only if the complaint meets credible-evidence standard [sic]”;
- The subjects of an investigation must receive status reports every 14 days; and
- “Command directed investigations must be closed within 30 days of initiation….”
The Signalgate investigation itself is evidence that thorough investigations of complex issues cannot occur before the 30-day deadline. That will kill them.
The new timelines and reporting requirements are part of the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to curtail oversight of legally questionable moves, according to Sen. Jack Reed (R-R.I.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
But there’s more.
Hegseth’s New Rule of Engagement: No. 2—Suppress Facts
On September 19, Hegseth issued a new policy that every reporter in the Pentagon had to sign: They could access the building only if they agreed to publish information that was “approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.”
Any reporter who violated the policy would face punishment ranging from the denial of press privileges to criminal prosecution. Reporters who failed to sign the new agreement by October 14 were required to turn in their press passes.
On October 6, Hegseth revised the policy so that it didn’t appear to be such a plainly unconstitutional prior restraint on a free press. The 21-page document clarified that reporters need not submit their materials in advance of publication. But it shifted the focus from punishing journalists who publish information that Hegseth doesn’t want disseminated to: 1) undermining journalists’ ability to gather it in the first place; and 2) inhibiting Defense Department employees from providing it.
Because Pete Hegseth can’t handle accountability or criticism, transparency is his enemy.
Specifically, the policy warned that journalists who “solicit” federal employees to disclose information that has not been approved for release may lose their press credentials. And according to the revised memo, “Solicitation may include direct communications with specific (Defense) personnel or general appeals, such as public advertisements or calls for tips encouraging (Defense) employees to share non-public (Defense) information.”
The Pentagon Press Association represents more than 100 news organizations that regularly cover the Pentagon. In a powerful statement, the Association said that Hegseth and his department were trying to “stifle a free press” with the new policy that “conveys an unprecedented message of intimidation to everyone within the DOD, warning against any unapproved interactions with the press and even suggesting it’s criminal to speak without express permission—which plainly, it is not.”
As Politico reported, it was “an unprecedented move that demands media outlets hand the department vast control over what they publish… The new rules give the Pentagon wide latitude to label journalists as security threats and revoke passes for those who obtain or publish information the agency says is unfit for public release.”
Every major news organization, including the conservative outlets Newsmax and Fox News (Hegseth’s former employer), refused to sign Hegseth’s document. Only the far-right, pro-Trump One America News agreed.
Here’s Fox News’ statement:
Today, we join virtually every other news organization in declining to agree to the Pentagon’s new requirements, which would restrict journalists’ ability to keep the nation and the world informed of important national security issues. The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections. We will continue to cover the US military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.
The Lessons
Two themes emerge from this sequence of events:
First, because Pete Hegseth can’t handle accountability or criticism, transparency is his enemy; and
Second, collective action to resist Trump administration assaults on the Constitution is possible.
Never give in. Never give up.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Destroys Another Guardrail of Democracy: Inspectors General
Rather than ferreting out corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the federal government, Trump has undermined the very professionals who have that job.
Oct 08, 2025
“Waste, fraud, and abuse.”
It’s President Donald Trump’s battle cry as he dismantles federal agencies, fires hundreds of thousands of employees, and demoralizes the workers who remain. It’s also another of his false flag operations.
Rather than ferreting out corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the federal government, Trump has undermined the very professionals who have that job: inspectors general.
The Role of the IGs
In the wake of procurement scandals and President Richard Nixon’s corrupt abuse of executive power for personal ends, Congress passed the Inspector General Act of 1978 to establish formally the duties and responsibilities of the office. Inspectors general pursue their missions with nonpartisan objectives and have a central role in holding government accountable.
Approximately half of the 70-plus inspectors general are appointed by the president, subject to Senate confirmation. They are the only independent offices within federal agencies designed to protect taxpayer money and root out corruption, fraud, waste, and mismanagement. IGs also investigate whistleblowers’ confidential claims.
Over the almost 50 years of their statutory existence, they have saved taxpayers billions of dollars.
Trump’s Escalating War on Independent IGs
For Trump and his allies, independent inspectors general have been a nuisance and worse. Following acquittal in his first impeachment, he replaced IGs for the intelligence community, State Department, Defense Department, Health and Human Services, and Transportation Department.
In his second term, Trump has moved more broadly and more rapidly. Typically, IGs remained in place when new presidents took office, underscoring their nonpartisan roles. But in violation of the statutory 30-day notice and “for cause” requirements for termination, Trump fired 17 of them during the first week of his second term. He had appointed several of them during his first term.
So the next time Trump and his allies say they’re eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the federal government, remember that Trump is actually doing the opposite: clearing away key guardrails of accountability.
During post-termination interviews with the New York Times, the fired IGs said that their biggest concern was the “chilling effect” that their abrupt, unlawful, and unjustified terminations would have on others. Professor Timothy Snyder calls it “obeying in advance.” The inspectors general used similar language to describe their fears:
“Self-censorship”
“Why would you want to write a report that will get you fired?”
“Installing someone who has more loyalty to one person than to the mission of the office.”
“If you do the work that you’re intended to do and it’s not popular, then you will be punished.”
“Who will speak truth to power?”
The concerns were justified. Trump doesn’t want anyone speaking truth to his power.
On Tuesday, February 11, the inspector general for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Paul Martin, issued a report criticizing Trump’s proposed dismantling of that agency and outlining the disastrous consequences. The next day, Trump fired him.
Final Act of Destruction
On September 28, 2025, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced that effective October 1 it was defunding the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. It was a strategic kill shot because the council is the umbrella agency supporting all of the inspectors general offices.
Beginning on October 1, what had been the website for the council stated only:
Due to a lack of apportionment of funds, this website is currently unavailable.
The same line appeared at numerous Office of Inspector General websites, including the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Justice, Interior and Veterans Affairs, and by those of AmeriCorps, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Federal Trade Commission, International Trade Commission, National Archives and Records Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Smithsonian Institution, and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
Contacting the watchdog website for the National Labor Relations Board's OIG page resulted in a “404 error.” The Architect of the Capitol’s IG page said “Not found”; another new page offered only hotline information and blamed the change on a “funding issue impacting Oversight.gov functions.”
The council also runs Oversight.gov, which houses over 34,000 reports from most of the OIGs, and operates 28 OIG websites that host legally required hotlines for whistleblowers to report suspected cases of government corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. That site was down too. The council site’s link to the “Inspectors General directory” stated only: “Not Found—the requested URL was not found on this server.”
Not a Funding Issue
But the so-called “lack of funds” asserted on the inoperative council website was not the result of the simultaneous government shutdown. The council’s budget did not require additional congressional authorization.
Rather, the OMB under the leadership of Director Russell Vought decided not to fund it. Vought, a self-described Christian nationalist, was a primary architect of Project 2025—a 900-page blueprint for expanding executive power (“the unitary executive”) and imposing an ultraconservative social vision. During the 2024 campaign, Project 2025 was so toxic that Trump repeatedly disavowed and claimed to know nothing about it; as president, he’s boasting about working with Vought to implement it.
Asked about its defunding decision, the OMB asserted without evidence that it shut down the IGs because they had “become corrupt, partisan, and in some cases, have lied to the public.”
Republicans Are Concerned?!
Even Senate Republicans were outraged. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) chairman of the Judiciary Committee, called on the White House to release the funding immediately.
So far, it hasn’t.
So the next time Trump and his allies say they’re eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the federal government, remember that Trump is actually doing the opposite: clearing away key guardrails of accountability.
And remember that when Republicans in Congress say they are “outraged” at some action Trump has taken, don’t expect them to do anything about it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rebalancing Checks and Balances: How to Curb Executive Abuse
President Trump has conclusively demonstrated that the executive branch cannot be trusted to police itself in following the law. Congress must act to prevent future overreach.
Apr 25, 2025
In his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump has moved aggressively to expand the authority of the executive branch, thereby upending our traditional system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. Reforming this system while he still holds office will be impossible, but he will eventually move on, and Congress should be planning now for changes to the system of shared governance to limit outsize executive authority and prevent future autocratic abuses.
Although President Trump has pushed the envelope further than most could have imagined possible, his abuse of power is reminiscent of the Nixon administration. After the Watergate scandal and the resignation of President Richard Nixon, Congress took steps, such as the Anti-Impoundment Act, to curb presidential excesses. Following the second Trump administration, an even more fundamental restructuring may be in order.
One thrust of Trump’s second term has been a concerted effort to sideline the legal referees charged with checking abuses. Nearly a score of inspectors generals charged with addressing fraud and abuse have been summarily dismissed without cause. The Office of Government Ethics has been decapitated. The head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel charged with enforcement of civil service laws, such as whistleblower protection, has been removed.
America did not intend to elect a dictator.
The net result is that violations of laws and ethics go unchecked because independent oversight has been neutralized. To prevent the recurrence of future lawless regimes, Congress should reinstitute some of the checks Mr. Trump has shredded but in a way that insulates them from unilateral executive reversal. Congress needs to strengthen the institutional guardrails against executive violations of ethical standards and for protection of federal employees from illegal actions and enforceable standards for scientific integrity.
One step would be a statute relocating inspectors general (IGs) within the legislative branch. IGs do not perform an inherently executive function as they lack authority to implement their recommendations. Congress should appoint fixed-term IGs and team them with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), another legislative body, to keep this strengthened watchdog function beyond executive obstruction.
In this restructuring, the independent IGs could also conduct scientific integrity reviews to resolve challenges to the accuracy of scientific and technical agency information. This would put control of scientific and technical data and analyses beyond the unilateral control of the very bureaucracies responsible for creating them and thereby prevent them from peddling disinformation. Moreover, uniform procedures would facilitate the use of expert scientists from other agencies, universities, and other institutions to serve as review panels.
Similarly, institutions charged with enforcing civil service protections, such as the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics, should be moved into the legislative branch, as well, to prevent them from executive nullification.
Most fundamentally, the executive should not be able to control the judges who decide on disputes the executive branch has with its employees, contractors, and others. Basic fairness requires that these referees be impartial and not under the direct control of one party in the disagreement.
These referee positions are also not inherently executive in nature. For example, under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, Congress designated its GAO to serve as an independent and impartial forum for the resolution of disputes concerning the awards of federal contracts. Similarly, investigations into and reviews of employment abuses and related disputes could be handled by statutorily relocated Offices of Special Counsel and Government Ethics.
Significantly, one of the more insidious recent Trump initiatives is asserting his authority to summarily remove administrative law judges (ALJs) who preside over hearings regarding administrative or legal disputes between federal agencies and affected parties. The prospect of removal at will undoubtedly pressures ALJs to alter their decisions to favor the executive agencies.
Mr. Trump is also attempting (once again) to sideline the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the civil service court which hears legal disputes about the illegal termination or treatment of federal employees. During his first term, President Trump shuttered MSPB by refusing to appoint any persons to fill MSPB vacancies. The three-member MSPB soon lost a quorum to decided cases and entered the Biden administration with a backlog of undecided appeals of more than 3,700 cases.
In his current term, Trump is trying the same approach, seeking to remove one of the two remaining MSPB members midway in her five-year term. As a result, the MSPB has once again been shuttered and may not reopen for years,
To enforce the basic rule of law, Congress should move the cadres of administrative law judges and the MSPB to the judicial branch so that the basic fairness of these decision-makers is safeguarded and they are shielded from further executive interference.
While President Trump may claim that he is implementing the will of the public, a recent Wall Street Journal poll found broad bipartisan support for limiting Trump’s unilateral executive authority. America did not intend to elect a dictator.
Yet, the principal takeaway from events of the past few months is that President Trump has conclusively demonstrated that the executive branch cannot be trusted to police itself in following the law. To prevent future presidents from assuming the same authoritarian posture as Trump, Congress must act decisively to fundamentally rebalance our system of checks and balances.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Let's Be Very Clear: The Real Fraud Is DOGE
The Musk-led effort is neither a money-saving nor fraud-finding operation—it's an ideologically driven assault by far-right libertarians who seek to destroy a functioning government for their own greedy ends.
Mar 03, 2025
Donald Trump and Elon Musk keep claiming that their scorched-earth approach to remaking the federal government is made necessary by the prevalence of fraud and waste. Musk’s DOGE attack-squad tabulates its progress on a Wall of Receipts that currently purports to have saved Uncle Sam $65 billion.
That number appears to have been plucked out of thin air. The savings for the 2,300 individual contracts listed on the site add up to only $9.6 billion, and even that amount is shaky. For example, the single biggest savings, $1.9 billion, is attached to a Treasury Department contract that is reported to have ended during the Biden Administration.
DOGE gives no details of any fraud it may have found in the contracts. That is not surprising, since it is impossible to have done a careful examination of that many contracts in such a short amount of time.
Large numbers of the contracts are linked to agencies the Trump Administration is in the process of dismantling. USAID accounts for 246 contracts with total purported savings of $4.2 billion. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has 404 listings with savings of $109 million. The Education Department, reported to be headed for the chopping block, has 119 contracts with supposed savings of $659 million.
What we see in DOGE is instead the illusion of an attack on corruption that serves as a smokescreen for the Trump Administration’s scheme to dismantle large portions of the federal government.
It seems clear DOGE targeted those contracts because of the agency involved, not any evidence of misconduct. Among the remaining 769 contracts, there are many that seem to be targeted for ideological reasons. They include numerous awards whose descriptions refer to now-taboo areas such as DEI or environmental justice.
There are more than 100 listings for subscriptions, especially for expensive services such as Politico, Bloomberg Law, and Lexis Nexis. Those may not always be worth the cost, but there is nothing corrupt about the need for an agency to have good access to information.
Then there are listings for contracts that have not gone into effect. The second biggest saving amount, $318 million, is attached to an Office of Personnel Management pre-award. How can there be fraud when there is no contractor yet?
DOGE’s list also contains numerous entries with obvious errors. These include instances in which there are two links pointing to different contract awards, making it unclear which one is meant to be included. For example, there is a $149 million savings connected both to a contractor called Advanced Automation Technologies Inc. (for three assistants) and to Airgas USA for refrigerated liquid gases.
By pointing to DOGE’s sloppy work, I do not mean to deny the existence of contract fraud. The problem is that Musk’s people, whether through ignorance or design, are looking in the wrong places. They seem to be ignoring the types of large contractors that have repeatedly been found to have cheated federal agencies.
The classic examples are the big weapons producers. As of now, DOGE lists only $8 million in savings from Defense Department contracts—and those are mainly from DEI awards and subscriptions. The same is true for the Department of Health and Human Services, even though healthcare is a major source of contractor fraud.
What gets forgotten in the claims about fraud coming from Trump and Musk is that the federal government already had a robust system for fighting contractor misconduct. Audits were done by agency inspectors general—who have now been fired by Trump—and prosecutions were launched by the Justice Department using the False Claims Act. Over the past decade, the DOJ has collected about $30 billion in fines and settlements.
That is serious fraud fighting. What we see in DOGE is instead the illusion of an attack on corruption that serves as a smokescreen for the Trump Administration’s scheme to dismantle large portions of the federal government. It remains to be seen how long they can keep up the charade.
This piece was originally published in the Dirt Diggers Digest newsletter.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Clear Violation': Eight Inspectors General Sue Trump Over Illegal Firings
"President Trump's attempt to eliminate a crucial and long-standing source of impartial, nonpartisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law."
Feb 12, 2025
Eight of at least 17 inspectors general recently fired by U.S. President Donald Trump jointly filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday in hopes of returning to their roles as watchdogs "ensuring the effective and efficient operation" of government agencies.
Inspectors general (IGs) do their jobs "by auditing and investigating their agencies' operations and personnel in order to detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and by making recommendations for improved agency operations," explains the complaint, filed in the District of Columbia.
"Over the years," the document notes, "IGs' nonpartisan work has saved American taxpayers billions of dollars; helped safeguard U.S. national security; stopped fraud (and helped to both recover the fruits of such fraud and put fraudsters in prison); helped to end mistreatment of some of the nation's most vulnerable citizens; and ensured that veterans, farmers, senior citizens, disaster victims, and other Americans receive the support and services to which they are entitled by law."
The complaint argues that "the purported firings violated unambiguous federal statutes—each enacted by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed into law by the president—to protect inspector generals from precisely this sort of interference with the discharge of their critical, non-partisan oversight duties."
The plaintiffs are:
- Phyllis K. Fong, Department of Agriculture;
- Robert P. Storch, Department of Defense;
- Sandra D. Bruce, Department of Education;
- Christi A. Grimm, Department of Health and Human Services;
- Larry D. Turner, Department of Labor;
- Cardell K. Richardson, Department of State; and
- Michael J. Missal, Department of Veterans Affairs; and
- Hannibal "Mike" Ware, Small Business Administration.
In addition to Trump, their complaint names as defendants the acting or Senate-confirmed leaders of each agency.
"President Trump is wrong to claim these actions were 'common' or 'standard.' To the contrary, since 1980, there has been a bipartisan consensus that it is improper for a new presidential administration to remove IGs en masse," the filing says. "President Trump's attempt to eliminate a crucial and long-standing source of impartial, nonpartisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law."
The fired federal workers are asking the district court to void their ousters, "so they remain the duly appointed IGs of their respective agencies, unless and until the president lawfully removes them" with a 30-day notice to Congress that details the reason for removal. In addition to getting their jobs back, they aim to block the named agency leaders, "or anyone working in concert with them, from impeding the lawful exercise of the duties of their offices."
Missal told multiple media outlets that their firings were "a clear violation of the law" and "the IGs are bringing this action for reinstatement so that they can go back to work fighting fraud, waste, and abuse on behalf of the American people."
The lawsuit came a day after nine civil society groups pressured the Senate to "act now to reaffirm its oversight role and demand full explanations from President Trump as to why each inspector general was removed, as mandated by law."
The IG firings are part of a broader effort by Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, chair of the president's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to purge the federal workforce and slash spending.
As USA Today noted Wednesday:
The Justice Department and FBI told top officials who investigated Trump and the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, to resign or be fired.
Trump tried to fire the head of the Federal Elections Commission, but she refused to leave. Trump tried to fire the head of the Office of Government Ethics, but a federal judge temporarily reinstated Hampton Dellinger, who argued he was removed unlawfully, while the case is litigated.
Citing an unnamed source, the newspaper also reported that the White House on Tuesday night fired Paul K. Martin, inspector general at the U.S. Agency for International Development, after he "issued a
scathing report saying staff cuts and funding pauses at the agency put more than $489 million in food assistance around the world at risk of spoiling."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Senate Must Demand Answers' Over Trump's Purge of Inspectors General
Their dismissals raise "significant concerns about maintaining the integrity and continuity of oversight," according to civil society groups.
Feb 11, 2025
Nine civil society groups are demanding that the Senate take action "to reaffirm its oversight role" in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's removal of at least 17 inspectors general at various federal agencies last month—a move that critics have called illegal.
Inspectors general are independent government watchdogs who are tasked with detecting and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse at federal agencies. They were installed as part of post-Watergate reforms.
The work of inspectors general is "especially important during times of presidential transition to ensure that agencies continue to operate effectively and serve the public," wrote the authors of the letter, which was addressed to the members of the U.S. Senate and dated Tuesday.
"The removal of multiple [inspectors general] at once raises significant concerns about maintaining the integrity and continuity of oversight. These abrupt dismissals undermine the ability of [inspectors general] to conduct thorough and impartial investigations, potentially deterring accountability at a critical time," they added.
The letter is signed by nine groups: American Oversight; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; Hispanic Leadership Fund; National Taxpayers Union; Project on Government Oversight; Public Citizen; R Street Institute; Taxpayers for Common Sense; and Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
"The Senate must demand answers," according to the groups, because federal law mandates that the president must give Congress 30 days advance notice of intent to remove an inspector general, along with the reason for the removal.
Hannibal Ware, chairperson of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, cast doubt on the legality of the firings in a January 24 letter sent to Sergio Gor, director of the Presidential Personnel Office, in response to the removals.
"I recommend that you reach out to White House counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed inspectors general," Ware wrote in the letter.
One of the inspectors general at the time described the removals as a "widespread massacre."
Viewed with hindsight, the firings of the inspectors general can be seen as an opening salvo in a string of high-profile, legally dubious removals that Trump has carried out over the past few weeks.
Trump recently dismissed a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board and "purportedly" removed the special counsel at the Office of Special Counsel, in both cases prompting lawsuits, among other removals.
Some senators, for their part, have already condemned Trump's removal of the inspectors general. Last week, over three dozen senators signed a letter to Trump saying that his actions violated removal protections and that they should be reinstated.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ Fires Jan. 6 Prosecutors, Top FBI Agents While Threatening Larger Purge
"Trump's outrageous attack on the DOJ and FBI is a clear and present danger to public safety, and a wrecking ball swinging at the rule of law," Rep. Jamie Raskin said.
Feb 01, 2025
The Trump Department of Justice made moves on Friday to fire FBI employees and prosecutors who were involved with the government's cases against U.S. President Donald Trump and the participants in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
First, on Thursday, several senior FBI officials—stationed both at headquarters and in the field—were told to either resign or be fired. Then, at 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, dozens of DOJ prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases received an email saying they had been fired. Also on Friday, an email sent to FBI employees told them that acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, who previously represented Trump in the cases against him, had requested a list of everyone who had worked on January 6 cases "to determine whether any additional personnel actions are necessary."
"Firing the FBI agents who investigated violent attacks against police officers on January 6 would set a dangerous precedent and make all of us less safe," Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said in a statement. "This is a shameless act of political retribution that weakens federal law enforcement and the rule of law."
"This is a massacre meant to chill our efforts to fight crime without fear or favor."
The FBI higher-ups forced out included the agency's six most senior executives as well as more than 20 directors of field offices including Washington, D.C., Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Seattle, and Las Vegas. The targeted officials had been promoted by former FBI Director Christopher Wray, according to The New York Times. The Washington, D.C. field office worked extensively on Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigations into Trump's mishandling of classified documents and involvement in the January 6 insurrection, as well as the investigations of the rioters themselves, NBC News reported. One source told The Hill that agents who had worked on the cases were physically escorted out of the D.C. field office on Friday.
NBC reported that several of the senior officials had chosen to retire, even though they could have challenged their dismissals as nonpolitical appointees subject to civil service regulations.
Many of the agents received the ultimatum the same day that U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to head the FBI, Kash Patel, promised in his Senate confirmation hearing that he would not retaliate against any agents who worked on the Trump cases and was not aware of any attempts to do so.
"All FBI employees will be protected against political retribution," Patel told the Senate.
Trump, meanwhile, said on Friday that he was not aware of the firings, but added, "If they fired some people over there, that's a good thing, because they were very bad. They were very corrupt people, very corrupt, and they hurt our country very badly with the weaponization."
Another memo sent by Bove to acting FBI Director Brian J. Driscoll Jr. laid the groundwork for more firings, as Driscoll was asked to submit a list of all agents and employees "assigned at any time to investigations and/or prosecutions" related to January 6, as The New York Times reported. Field offices received a similar request from the FBI's counterterrorism division. Bove also asked for a list of agents who worked on a case against Hamas leadership, though it is not clear why.
One employee told CNN that the January 6 case was the largest case the bureau had ever worked on, observing that "everyone touched that case."
In an email to staff on Friday reported by NBC, Driscoll noted, "We understand that this request encompasses thousands of employees across the country who have supported these investigative efforts," adding, "I am one of those employees."
"This is a massacre meant to chill our efforts to fight crime without fear or favor," another anonymous agent told CNN. "Even for those not fired, it sends the message that the bureau is no longer independent."
The FBI Agents Association, which represents over 14,000 active and former agents, issued a scathing statement on Friday.
"If true, these outrageous actions by acting officials are fundamentally at odds with the law enforcement objectives outlined by President Trump and his support for FBI Agents," the association said. "Dismissing potentially hundreds of agents would severely weaken the bureau's ability to protect the country from national security and criminal threats and will ultimately risk setting up the bureau and its new leadership for failure. These actions also contradict the commitments that Attorney General-nominee Pam Bondi and Director-nominee Kash Patel made during their nomination hearings before the United States Senate."
The group added that Patel had promised association members in a meeting that "agents would be afforded appropriate process and review and not face retribution based solely on the cases to which they were assigned."
Finally on Friday, DOJ prosecutors received an email from Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, telling them they were being fired and including a memo from Bove. The fired prosecutors had been hired to work on the January 6 cases and were made permanent by the Biden administration following the November election. In his memo, Bove suggested the prosecutors had been made permanent in an inappropriate attempt to protect them from being fired.
"I will not tolerate subversive personnel actions by the previous administration at any U.S. Attorney's Office," Bove wrote, as POLITICO reported. "Too much is at stake. In light of the foregoing, the appropriate course is to terminate these employees."
One of the impacted prosecutors told POLITICO that 25 to 30 people were let go.
"This attack on the Justice Department and particularly on the FBI is the beginning of America's first true era of dictatorship."
The latest round of DOJ firings comes days after the Trump administration already fired a dozen lawyers who had helped bring Smith's two cases against Trump. They also come a week after Trump's firing of 12 inspectors general. Trump also pardoned all approximately 1,500 people involved in the January 6 insurrection on his first day in office.
News of the FBI and DOJ firings sparked ire from Democratic lawmakers.
"Trump's outrageous attack on the DOJ and FBI is a clear and present danger to public safety, and a wrecking ball swinging at the rule of law," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, in a statement. "Trump wants to send the message to the police and federal officers that the law doesn't apply to Trump and his enablers. It's also part of his campaign to replace nonpartisan career civil servants with political loyalists and incompetent sycophants. Trump's moves have already left the Justice Department and the FBI rudderless and adrift by ousting their career senior ranks. Now, these unprecedented purges of hundreds of prosecutors, staff, and experienced law enforcement agents will undermine the government's power to protect our country against national security, cyber, and criminal threats."
"The loyal friend of autocrats, kleptocrats, oligarchs, and broligarchs, Trump doesn't care about the requirements of democracy, national security, and public safety," Raskin continued. "His agenda is vengeance and retribution. If allowed to proceed, Trump's purge of our federal law enforcement workforce will expose America to authoritarianism and dictatorship."
Sen. Dick Durbin, (D-Ill.), who serves on the Judiciary Committee, called the firings "a major blow to the FBI and Justice Department's integrity and effectiveness."
"This is a brazen assault on the rule of law that also severely undermines our national security and public safety," Durbin continued. "Unelected Trump lackeys are carrying out widespread political retribution against our nation's career law enforcement officials. President Trump would rather have the FBI and DOJ full of blind admirers and loyalists than experienced law enforcement officers."
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) also decried the firings and cast doubt on the integrity of Bondi and Patel, whom Trump had tapped to lead the DOJ and FBI respectively.
"Pam Bondi and Kash Patel both committed to protecting the Department of Justice and the FBI from politics and weaponization. If these reports are true, it's clear they misled the Senate," Himes said. "As ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, I have repeatedly asked the FBI for more information about these reports and will insist on answers."
Fellow Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro wrote on social media: "Priority #1 for the Trump administration: Protect the lawless and purge those who uphold the law. The firing of FBI agents and federal prosecutors without cause is an assault on the rule of law and law enforcement. It leaves Americans vulnerable and less safe. We will push back."
As Democrats promised action, Harvey of Stand Up America also called on Republican lawmakers to respond.
"This is not about public safety—it's about revenge and control," Harvey said. "Removing experienced law enforcement professionals and replacing them with political loyalists puts all of our safety at risk. If there are any Republican senators left who care about protecting the rule of law and public safety, they should oppose this dangerous purge and reject Kash Patel's nomination as FBI Director."
Progressive political commenter Thom Hartmann urged U.S. citizens to call their representatives.
"Let's just call these mass firings at Justice and the FBI what they are. Donald Trump is a lawless man who is ripping apart the FBI to turn it into a banana republic-style group of enforcing thugs who will only do his will," Hartmann wrote on his Substack Saturday morning. "They will spare his friends and persecute his enemies. We've seen this over and over during the past century in countries all over the world; it's nothing new. It's just that we never expected to see it here in America."
"[Russian President Vladimir] Putin dreamed for most of his life of destroying America; he now has a friend who is doing it for him. This attack on the Justice Department and particularly on the FBI is the beginning of America's first true era of dictatorship. The only question now is how long and how far Democratic and Republican politicians and career government employees will tolerate this, and, when their resistance comes, whether it will be too late. The phone number for Congress is 202-224-3121."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It's a Widespread Massacre': Trump Reportedly Purges At Least a Dozen Inspectors General
"President Trump is dismantling checks on his power and paving the way for widespread corruption," Senator Elizabeth Warren warned.
Jan 25, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly fired at least a dozen inspectors general at various federal agencies late Friday, according to multiple news outlets, in a move that may run afoul of federal law.
Outlets are listing different numbers for how many inspectors general—independent government watchdogs who conduct objective audits and seek to prevent abuse and waste—were terminated.
The New York Times reported at least 12 inspectors general were dismissed, citing "three people with knowledge of the matter"—but noted that as of Saturday morning, there were competing lists circulating about how many inspector generals had been notified of their termination. Other outlets, like Reuters and The Washington Post, put the count higher, citing unnamed sources.
Also according to the Times, "on Saturday morning, a White House official confirmed that 'some' inspectors general had been dismissed, but did not respond to a request for a list of those who had been terminated."
In response to the news, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on X: "It's a purge of independent watchdogs in the middle of the night. Inspectors general are charged with rooting out government waste, fraud, abuse, and preventing misconduct. President Trump is dismantling checks on his power and paving the way for widespread corruption."
The firings appear to violate federal law, which stipulates that the president must give Congress 30 days advance notice of intent to remove an inspector general, along with the reason for the removal, according to both the Times and the Post.
"It's a widespread massacre," one of the fired inspectors general told the Post. "Whoever Trump puts in now will be viewed as loyalists, and that undermines the entire system."
Hannibal Ware, chairperson of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, cast doubt on the legality of the firings in a Friday letter sent to Sergio Gor, director of the Presidential Personnel Office.
"I recommend that you reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed inspectors general," Ware wrote in the letter, which was reported on by multiple outlets.
"White House will likely argue this is unconstitutional, but this will be a fight," wrote Kyle Cheney, a reporter at Politico, on X.
According to the Post, inspectors general who were ousted oversaw some of the federal government's largest agencies, including: The Defense Department, the State Department, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and others.
The news also engendered criticism from the watchdog group Public Citizen.
Jon Golinger, Public Citizen's democracy advocate, called the administration's actions "a watchdog wipeout cooked up by corporate lobbyists that knock down the walls that keep corruption from running rampant."
"Replacing nonpartisan, independent inspectors general with loyal political cronies opens the door to more government fraud, waste, and abuse," he said in a statement Saturday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy