In a move that has ignited widespread controversy, former President Donald Trump dismissed 18 inspectors general (IGs) on January 24, including Eric Soskin of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Cardell Richardson of the State Department. The firings have drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers, watchdog organizations, and members of the public concerned about the implications for government oversight.
Soskin, who served as the DOT’s IG since December 2020, was instrumental in providing independent oversight of critical transportation programs. His office conducted audits that examined the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) oversight of Boeing production issues, consumer-protection compliance in the airline industry, and air traffic control modernization efforts. These audits were pivotal in identifying areas of inefficiency, waste, and potential misconduct, holding the DOT accountable to taxpayers. Richardson, who took on the IG role at the State Department just last May, was similarly tasked with ensuring transparency and accountability in foreign policy operations.
The abrupt removal of these IGs has sparked concerns about the independence of government watchdogs. Inspectors general are mandated by law to operate autonomously, providing nonpartisan oversight to ensure federal agencies function effectively and ethically. Critics argue that Trump’s decision undermines this independence, setting a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.
Speaking aboard Air Force One on January 25, Trump defended his actions, asserting, “I don’t know them, but some people thought that some were unfair or some were not doing their job. It’s a very standard thing to do.” However, the scale of these dismissals is far from standard. Historically, while incoming administrations may replace some inspectors general, the breadth of these firings and their timing so close to the end of Trump’s presidency has raised red flags.
According to Hannibal “Mike” Ware, chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), the removals were justified as part of “changing priorities.” However, Ware pointed out that the 2022 statutory language requires the president to notify Congress at least 30 days prior to an IG’s dismissal and to provide detailed, case-specific reasons. In this instance, such notifications and rationales were reportedly absent.
“Congress specifically established the authorities and structure of the IGs to safeguard their vital oversight role by mandating independence under the IG Act,” Ware noted in a statement. He emphasized that removals inconsistent with the law not only threaten the independence of IGs but also erode public trust in the integrity of federal oversight mechanisms.
Lawmakers, particularly Democrats, have responded with swift condemnation. In a joint letter to Trump, the top-ranking Democrats on 21 House committees called the firings illegal and a threat to democracy. They underscored the critical role IGs play in holding federal agencies accountable, especially during times of political transition.
Republican lawmakers, on the other hand, have been divided. Some have defended Trump’s authority to remove IGs, arguing that these positions serve at the pleasure of the president. Others, however, have expressed reservations, urging the administration to ensure transparency and compliance with statutory requirements.
The dismissal of inspectors general raises fundamental questions about the balance of power in government. IGs are meant to act as a check against corruption, fraud, and mismanagement within federal agencies. Removing them without substantive justification undermines their ability to carry out this critical work and sets a troubling precedent for future administrations.
The firings have also reignited debates about the politicization of oversight roles. Critics warn that if IGs are perceived as vulnerable to political whims, their credibility and effectiveness will be irreparably damaged.
In the days ahead, it remains to be seen whether Congress will take further action to address what many see as an unprecedented assault on the independence of government watchdogs. For now, the dismissals stand as a stark reminder of the fragile balance between executive power and accountability in American governance.
