Understanding Trump's Mass Firing of Inspectors General, AKA Agency Watchdogs: Should We Be Concerned?

In trying to understand recent events affecting our government's oversight system, I've been reviewing the mass firing of Inspectors General that occurred on January 25th. Here's what I've learned and why I think it matters.

 

What Happened

According to multiple news sources, including the Associated Press and NBC News, the Trump administration fired approximately 17(18? this is inconsistent in the news articles) Inspectors General across various federal agencies in a single night. These officials serve as independent watchdogs within government agencies, investigating waste, fraud, and abuse.

 

 

What I've Learned About Inspectors General

I didn't know much about Inspectors General before this, but my research shows they were created after Watergate as a way to prevent government misconduct. They're supposed to be nonpartisan positions - while presidents can appoint them, they're expected to serve administrations of both parties and operate independently.

 

 

What Is an Inspector General?

After witnessing misused government power, Congress created these positions in 1978 to prevent future abuses. They serve as independent investigators within federal agencies, making sure our tax dollars are spent properly and government officials follow the rules.

These watchdogs perform several crucial functions. They conduct audits to spot wasteful spending. They investigate allegations of fraud or misconduct. They help protect whistleblowers who report problems. And they provide independent oversight that helps maintain public trust in government operations.

They act as an internal affairs department for federal agencies, ensuring that the government follows the rules and uses public resources as intended.  

 

 

What Actually Happened?

On the night of January 24, 2025, around 7:30 PM, approximately 17 Inspectors General received unexpected emails from the White House Personnel Office. The messages were brief - just two sentences informing them they were immediately fired due to "changing priorities." Of note, the current administration has not provided a comprehensive list of fired officials, but I've found some information online

Among those dismissed were watchdogs from major government agencies including:

• The Department of Defense
• The State Department
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development
• The Department of Veterans Affairs
• The Department of Energy
• The Department of Transportation
• The USDA - Phyllis Fong

One of the fired officials, Mark Greenblatt at the Interior Department, was appointed by Trump during his first term. Another, Hannibal Ware at the Small Business Administration, served as the chair of the Council of Inspectors General, which coordinates oversight work across agencies. In addition to those who were fired, others such as Michael Horowitz were specifically noted to be spared by news articles due to his history of critical and supportive reports of Trump policies from his first term.  

The Trump administration has stated that this is a "common thing to do" suggesting that this happens often. Based on my review, it seems that firings on this scale are rare, however, the history of this group is relatively limited given that it was started in the late 1970s. 

From a New York Times article in 1981: "On Inauguration Day,  Mr. Reagan sent notice to Congress that he had removed 13 inspectors general and two acting inspectors general in 15 agencies." So, this has happened in the past; however, this was before the 2008 and 2022 amendments to the act that required 30 days of notice and a reason for dismissal. 

Other president's records:

    Biden: One, Railroad Retirement Board

    Trump (first term): Five in first 2 months after inauguration: from Wikipedia "The inspectors general removed were Michael K. Atkinson, Intelligence, on April 3; Glenn Fine (acting), Defense, April 7; Christi Grimm (acting), Health and Human Services, May 1; Mitch Behm (acting), Transportation, May 15; and Steve Linick, State, May 15."

    Obama: One, Corporation for National Community Service

    Bush: None (some controversy around two IGs, but no official dismissals)

    Clinton: No identified resources to confirm numbers, but no firings found on review

    Bush Sr.: Requested resignations of all IGs, however, rescinded this request after controversy arose.

    Reagan: 16 (he later rehired 5 following concerns from Congress)

    Carter: Position created later in Carter's presidency, so no firings. 

This has not historically occurred that I can find on the same scale as what Mr. Trump's administration has performed given that some were rescinded, however of note it was two Republican administrations who have tried to act on the same scale (George H.W. Bush [35 years ago] and Reagan [44 years ago]). At this time it was not required that they provide reasons. When Mr. Obama and Biden fired the single IG reasons and notices were provided.

This seems to be a significant change in how IGs are treated, however, there is some historical basis for this, though not in most millennials, Gen Z, or Gen Alpha's memories. This represents a recent shift in how the internal affairs of the government are handled and monitored. How you interpret this as a presidential action depends on how you interpret the need for independent review vs the authority of the executive branch. 

 

 

Understanding the Legal Puzzle of the Inspector General Firings

From what I can tell, there are two key aspects here, Constitutional power granted to the president and congressional rules for executing this power. 

Let me break down what I've learned about this.

 

The President's Constitutional Power

From what I understand after reading several legal experts, the president's power to fire these officials comes from the Constitution itself. As the head of the executive branch, the president has broad authority to remove executive branch officials. This makes sense - the president is responsible for making sure our laws are carried out properly, so they need to be able to manage the people doing that work.

Legal scholar Jack Goldsmith explains that the Supreme Court has generally supported this presidential power, recognizing what he calls an "unrestricted removal power" over executive officials, with only limited exceptions.

 

Congress's Rules for Removal

But here's where it gets interesting. Congress, concerned about protecting these watchdog positions, passed laws putting some rules around how these removals should happen. The most recent update was in 2022, and it says two specific things need to happen when firing an Inspector General:

1. The president must tell Congress 30 days before the firing happens.
2. The president must provide a detailed explanation for each removal, including specific reasons for that particular Inspector General.

What's particularly interesting is that even Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who helped write these protections in 2022, has pointed out that these requirements weren't followed. The firings were immediate - no 30-day notice - and the only explanation given was "changing priorities."

 

 

An Important Distinction About Replacements

Here's something I found particularly interesting in the legal analysis: while the president probably has the constitutional power to fire these officials (even if he didn't follow the proper process), Congress has much stronger authority to control who can replace them.

The 2022 law put strict limits on who can serve as temporary replacements. The president can't just put anyone he wants in these positions - they have to either be:

• Another Senate-confirmed Inspector General, or
• A senior career official who was already working in an Inspector General office

This means that even though the president could remove the watchdogs (though not in the way it was done), he faces real legal barriers to replacing them with political allies.

 

 

The Practical Result

What does all this mean in practice? Right now, career officials from within each Inspector General office will likely take over as acting watchdogs. The president could nominate new permanent Inspectors General, but they would need Senate confirmation - something that might be difficult to achieve this year.

This legal framework shows how our system tries to balance presidential authority with the need for independent oversight. The president has significant power to remove officials, but Congress has created speed bumps and guardrails around that power to protect the independence of these watchdog positions.

 

My Level of Concern: Mildly elevated

After looking into this, I'm concerned, though not at a panic level. Here's why:

The actual firing of Inspectors General isn't necessarily a crisis - presidents have this power. What worries me is:

1. The scale - removing 17-18 watchdogs all at once seems designed to weaken oversight broadly
2. The timing - doing it immediately upon taking office suggests a desire to remove oversight before major policy changes
3. The method - ignoring the legal requirements for notification and explanation shows a concerning disregard for the law
4. The precedent - if this becomes normal, we could lose an important tool for preventing government corruption

I'm particularly struck by what one of the fired Inspectors General, Mark Lee Greenblatt, said. He raised an important question: will the replacements be "watchdogs or lap dogs?" That gets to the heart of the matter - these positions only work if they maintain independence from the administration they're overseeing.

Looking Forward

I'll be watching several things:

• Who gets appointed as replacements
• Whether Congress pushes back on the violation of notification requirements
• If this leads to any legal challenges
• How it affects ongoing investigations at these agencies

The president has the power to remove these officials, but the way it was done raises real concerns about respect for legal requirements and the future of independent oversight in our government. Not a constitutional crisis, but definitely something that deserves continued attention.

I'll keep tracking this situation and sharing what I learn. If you have insights or see things differently, I'd be interested in hearing your perspective.

 

 

References for this post: 

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-fired-17-inspectors-general-was-it-legal

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2662/text/ih 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-fires-multiple-inspectors-general-legally-murky-overnight-move-rcna189261

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5109677-trump-inspectors-general-firings-oversight/

https://www.foxnews.com/media/inspector-general-dismissed-trump-calls-mass-firings-threat-democracy

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/03/us/ouster-of-all-inspectors-general-by-reagan-called-political-move.html

List of generals fired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_dismissals_of_inspectors_general 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_dismissals_of_inspectors_general