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
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
Most Popular