Trump Fires at Least 17 IGs
And remembering "jokes" about governing like a dictator.
Reuters reports: Trump fires 17 independent inspectors general at federal agencies, source says.
U.S. President Donald Trump fired 17 independent watchdogs at multiple government agencies on Friday, a person with knowledge of the matter said, eliminating a critical oversight component and clearing the way to replace them with loyalists.
The inspectors general at agencies including the departments of state, defense and transportation were notified by emails from the White House personnel director that they had been terminated immediately, the source said on condition of anonymity.
The dismissals appeared to violate federal law, which requires the president to give both houses of Congress reasons for the dismissals 30 days in advance.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
I say “at least” in the headline because the headlines already range from 12 to 14 to now 17. As such, the number could be higher. While I understand the journalistic practice of hedging, it seems pretty clear that if the law requires a 30-day notice to Congress this is an illegal move.
Friday’s dismissals spared the Department of Justice inspector general, Michael Horowitz, according to the New York Times. The Washington Post, which was first to report the dismissals, said most were appointees from Trump’s 2017-2021 first term.
[…]
an inspector general can serve under multiple presidents.
[…]
In 2022, Congress strengthened protections for inspectors general, making it harder to replace them with hand-picked officials and requiring additional explanations from a president for their removal.
We may all recall Trump’s “joke” about being a dictator on day one, but not after. Well, it seems worth pointing out that he has been very much issuing a lot of dictates for his first week. Like his EO to ban birthright citizenship, which was an attempt to rewrite the Constitution, firing these IGs challenges the legal order to stop him. Rather than behaving like a normal president and recognizing that there are boundaries, he doesn’t want to hear about such niceties (seeing that as a mistake he made the first time around).
Indeed, if we look at the new administration’s approach to governance, at least in its first week, it comes across not as putting forth policies and looking to work through Congress to enact them, but rather challenging the rest of government to stop whatever it is he wants to do.
Before someone says it, yes, presidents often push at the boundaries. But usually, they pick their spots. Trump is pushing boundaries with practically everything he is doing.
And even in areas where there is likely no legal boundary being crossed, we see Trump imposing his will on the government as much as possible. Things like the hiring freeze (which is affecting real people), or the halt of certain NIH activities fit this category.
Trump 2.0 is using both legal and almost certainly illegal moves to govern in as dictatorial a fashion as he can get away with. He is literally trying to dictate as much as he can. As, such, those who bought the notion that he was “just joking” and who thought that all of us nervous nellies who didn’t like that kind of rhetoric were overreacting need to reassess.
It is worth noting that Trump’s actions are getting him exactly what he wants, the perception that he is powerful. For example, via David Litt at The Contrarian:
It’s easy to seem like a comms genius during a presidential honeymoon, but so far, Trump’s scattershot strategy is paying off. One CBS article about his immigration crackdown said Trump “invoked muscular presidential powers,” which is a bit like saying Jeffrey Dahmer, “displayed omnivorous taste.” And that’s the kind of coverage Trump wants. MAGA diehards are pumped up. Swing voters who don’t like everything about Trump still see him as strong and decisive. The half of the country that voted against Trump is frightened.
While I have not kept a catalog, I have seen a number of similar press descriptions of Trump’s actions. It feeds his strongman image.
Let’s remember that SCOTUS gave the president wide immunity in terms of pursuing his official duties and that all it takes is a couple of Aileen Cannon’s to allow any number of these orders to be upheld.
The question at this point is not whether Trump will govern like a dictator. The question is how effective will be be at it?
I will reshare this graph, which demonstrates a very different approach to governing.
Again, yes, EOs are a thing all presidents issue EOs. Some of them have more teeth than others, and many are fairly anodyne. I even accept that given presidents will issue EOs to countermand those of their predecessors. But there is a clear strategy of flooding the zone with 26 on the first day, especially given the flood of actions that have continued all week.
At a minimum, the firing of the IGs is another piece of a grim puzzle.
That’s one question. others include: will there be a coup, an armed revolt, a civil war, a few dozen assassination attempts, a world war, a collapse of the post-WWII order set up largely by -checks notes- the Unites States.
It’s important to not that IGs often serve across multiple administrations. In fact, my understand is some of the people who were fired were appointed during Trump’s first administration and continued to serve under President Biden.
Forbes has a good, free primer on IGs role and data about past Presidents transitions:
Trump Fires Several Inspectors General—Here’s Why That Matters https://search.app/ei2G24nAySZhKFbn6
One thing that will also raise eyes is that two years ago, Congress passed a law that essentially required that there needed to be a performance cause to any firing.
Insufficiently loyal wouldn’t meet that requirement.
As I mentioned in the SaturTabs thread, what is a violation of law when the President does it?Call John Roberts and get his opinion.
I agree with most all of this. It’s one of the reasons why I have, for the past couple of decades, harangued about the dangerous de facto growth of the power of the Executive branch.
The illegal acts need to be actively opposed via the courts – and the are – and people are going to learn and need to be educated on all the things that are legal that have flown under the radar and perhaps reconsider whether the President ought to have such a wide latitude. I have little hope that Congress would do anything, because Congress likes nothing more than shifting responsibility to the other branches and failing to take its responsibilities seriously.
Are there things we can do about this? Or do we just get to sit quietly and grind our teeth? Thanks!
@Matt Bernius:
Until the House and Senate amend the law next week. 🙁
@Andy: Not being a lawyer, I have to ask who is going to pursue this through the courts? Who has standing here? The individual IG, a congressman or committee? Like you I don’t see Congress doing anything here unless they care about their own power.
Inspector Generals whitewashed and covered up Crossfire Hurricane FISA abuse, ATF Fast and Furious and IRS targeting of tea party groups.
Obama, Biden and Holder authorized, oversaw and were briefed frequently about the programs that they claimed they found about later in the newspapers.
@Scott:
I don’t know enough yet about what legal options are available. I am not a lawyer either.
Also, it’s really annoying none of the reports I’ve found list exactly which IG’s were eliminated.
And reports don’t include basic background info, such as the fact the federal government has 75 IG offices. Which ones were canned and which were not matters a great deal.
@Andy: It also matters whether the law was followed by the administration.
There’s that pesky legal framework. Used to matter to the gop. Trump ignores the law and they look at their shoes.
@Andy:
I’m curious as to why it matters which ones were canned if a) they typically serve across administrations; and b) the firings are illegal, having not gone through the proper process.
Politico lists the IGs at the following departments as ones who have been illegally terminated from their jobs: State, Ag, Interior, Transportation, HUD, Education, Labor and Defense, the SBA, the US Energy Corp., and the EPA.
At least one, Cardell Richardson Sr. at State, has said he’s going to work on Monday as usual, as the firings are illegal.
ETA: I’ve googled a few of these and have noticed a bit of a pattern.
@becca:
Which I mentioned in my original comment…
@Paul L: Great.
Governance by crazy conspiracy theory.
@Jen:
I was wondering if someone would do this. It can only escalate to goons escorting him out or having badges deleted. Also a loyalty test for Rubio. Is he willing to back up his employees or cave to the White House.
This is when the horse escaped the barn. What Trump and his enablers do with the imperial presidency the Roberts Court handed them was preordained.
@Andy:
Don’t expect the courts to be much help. The unitary executive has been a cause championed by the conservative judiciary since Reagan and these conservative jurists are now placed throughout the federal courts and they control SCOTUS.
The federal courts won’t be allies in a fight against increased authority for the president. They’re collaborators on what you oppose.
@Scott: Google Mr. Richardson and let me know how you think that’s going to go.
@Andy: acknowledged… my comment was more for emphasis of the importance of following the law regardless whether the firings are justified or not. That issue is beside the point in this argument. No context needed.
@Scott:
Narrator: Rubio caves to the White House.
@Jen: Oh, good grief. Are they going to play the DEI card? On a 70 year old retired AF Colonel who has zero to lose? It could get fun.
@Scott: Of the 11 listed in Politico, it appears that four of the fired are white men. The rest are Black/women/minorities. Now, that’s admittedly a small number. But it certainly at first blush looks pretty sus.
@Tony W:
Worked when the Hillary Clinton campaign financed and created one of the greatest works of fiction in living memory: the Steele Dossier.
@Paul L.: Dude, this crap is almost a decade old by now. Nobody. Cares. Find some new material. You’re getting boring as shit.
@Paul L.:
“the greatest works of fiction in living memory: the Steele Dossier”
You’re right, the conservative bedwetting about the Steele Dossier is one of the greatest works of fiction in living memory.
@Mikey: “getting”?
The IGs are basically telling Trump to pound sand because these firings are plainly illegal.
The letter they wrote to the White House is here:
https://bsky.app/profile/ariellaelm.bsky.social/post/3lgll7cz33s2h
MAGA also generally have ignorant, overly abstracted views of how autocracy used to work. For instance, saying Louie XIV “centralized state power” is imagined as some sort of grand administrative thing.
The dude forced all the greatest lords of the country to go live in the same house as him, and they all had to literally be there every day. Every day Louie went to bed, he would do a headcount to make sure that no lord was missing.
People imagine that autocracy is built through clever planning. It’s often the most brute force inefficient stupidity you can imagine.
@Scott:
This is a question in your mind? About a guy who gave up a safe Senate seat for who-only-knows-what?
WA! Mind blown!
@Scott F.: I’m trying to find the thread. Weren’t you telling me a week ago it didn’t matter if Biden technically should have been removed from office under the 25th Amendment as long as your team was getting what it wanted? Sorry if I’m confusing you with another commenter. For the record, if this is unconstitutional I hope the IGs stand up to Trump and win.
@Fortune: This was an illegal act, not unconstitutional. It violates a law passed by Congress.
Might seem picky but there is a difference.
@Jen: OK. For the record, if this is illegal I hope the IGs stand up to Trump and win. ETA: I guess I have to add “unless the law is a violation of the separation of powers”.
@Andy: I appreciate you noting this, as I was sincerely (no snark!) curious as to whether you would see this as just another outrage or if it fit into a heightened category.
@Jen:
Republican voters already know Trump is a criminal. Who plans to reduce crime by releasing 1,500+ criminals.
From the corrupt MAGA Supreme Court on down, the right no longer cares about the rule of law, or even basic decency. They’re slaves to Trump, who incited the Jan 6 terror attack and who said this of Epstein:
“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” – Donald Trump
Once the right sold its soul to this unqualified thug who publicly sexualized his own daughter, it was clear conservatives will excuse anything. It will be out-of-character for any Republican judge appointed after Reagan to stop the orange felon from law breaking. American rightwingers are now all-in for insurrection; this is child’s play.
Question is when will Trump fix healthcare, housing, and grocery costs as promised? Prices still rising, crime still occurring, Republicans do nothing but Nazi salutes and firing qualified patriots to hire MAGA drunks, druggies, and perverts.
@Paul L: “Inspector Generals whitewashed and covered ”
Well done, Paul. I had my money on Fortune coming up with the first whataboutism bullshit Trump-sucking response to this post, but you got right in there. Toady of the day!
If we are relying upon the courts I think we are in trouble. SCOTUS, as noted above, strongly supports the unitary executive stance and has basically ruled that the POTUS, at least Trump, is basically immune from prosecution. They will find ways to support Trump only ruling against some of the most far out things Trump orders.
Steve
@Scott F.: “The unitary executive has been a cause championed by the conservative judiciary since Reagan ”
That would be the unitary executive for Republican presidents. Right-wing courts tried to shut down essentially everything Biden did.
@Fortune: “I guess I have to add “unless the law is a violation of the separation of powers”.”
And weighing in just minutes later, it’s Today #2! Sorry, Fortune, Paul already went home with the steak knives.
@wr: My comment was whataboutism? How. And what was wrong with it. My initial comment was if it’s unconstitutional. Jen corrected me that it’s illegal, good for her, there is a difference, the difference being that a law may be unconstitutional. So I added that.
@Fortune:
No. What I told you was that there were no grounds to remove Biden from office, technically or otherwise, under the 25th Amendment, because he was clearly able “to discharge the powers and duties of his office” as demonstrated by several examples I provided of legislation that all US citizen regardless of °team° are benefiting from today. (You’re welcome BTW.)
Then you demonstrated your penchant for misinformation by willingfully misunderstanding the 25th Amendment because clearly neither the Vice President, a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments, nor any other body such as Congress was under any obligation to declare any disability based on a remote diagnosis of incapacity made by randos on the Internet such as you.
Then you, coward that you are, provided no evidence to refute Biden’s effectiveness in office, but instead started to deflect by misrepresenting my arguments and asserting your faux neutrality in partisan matters.
And finally, I expressed regret publicly on this forum for engaging with you at all, because I know better than to feed a troll. Alas, here I’ve done it again.
But since I’ve bothered to type out this correction of your disingenuousness, I’m going to go ahead and post. And hope to the heavens that you can read the signs and understand that I have no interest in further back and forth with you. You can have the last word.
@Jen: Jen – My “good for her” was not sarcastic. Thank you for the fact check.
@Scott F.: Which thread was that?
@wr:
Ain’t it cool how most perversions of democracy (unitary executive, partisan gerrymandering, the Electoral College, aggressive disenfranchisement, etc.) are only righteous when wielded by Republicans while they are corrupt when applied by Democrats?
@wr:
Oh, don’t worry, you might be onto something.
Check out these weird comments from yesterday in the Musk post:
1. @Fortune
2. @Fortune
In which the author begins defending himself in the third person, bizarrely so, like a third-party observer defense. Smells of “Oops, I put the wrong name into the text box this time.”
Would it be surprising if all our trolls were the same kook — some disgruntled current or former regular hiding his indefensible amorality behind multiple screen names? Makes sense that one so phony and cowardly would be so preoccupied with alleged bullying (aka “when I’m recognized as being full of crap”).
Trolling, She Wrote.
Basically no one believed he was joking. They were just lying, because they knew he was serious. It’s like the Elon Nazi salute — there are people who will tell you that it wasn’t what we all saw, but by and large they are just lying.
(Sure, Senor Jay L Glisher (not looking it up) doesn’t think it was a Nazi salute since it didn’t match Das Boot, but given that it matches exactly what Nazis are doing these days, I have to assume he was either kicked in the head, is having a spectacular brain fart, or desperately does not want to live in the reality where what we all saw happen happened. But these people are incredibly rare.)
Most “normies” have no idea what Trumpmwas running on, so they be basically ignored. That leaves behind the genuinely misled, and those who have been attempting to mislead.
And anyone who was paying attention and was misled is kind of baffling — did they not notice that Trump doesn’t have a sense of humor? His only laughter is about how he hurt someone or how he is going to hurt someone.
The goal of these transparent lies isn’t even really to fool people, but to provide a fig leaf — a vaguely respectable fig leaf — for those who want to support horrible things, but don’t want to be seen supporting horrible things.
It’s like when Hegseth refers to the women under an NDA agreement with him as part of a settlement as “anonymous accusers.” A fig leaf.
Anyway, how about that Hegseth? I half expect that he is being prepared to be a fall guy for better chosen underlings doing amazingly unpopular things. It’s either that or a deliberate plan to saddle defense with an unqualified leader who will destroy everything around him.
@Scott F.:
x100
Coward.
Fake.
Faux neutrality.
All accurate. Assessment rings true, and also oddly familiar. I have my ideas on who this “Fortune” fella actually is.
@Gustopher:
Yes, because MAGA conservatives are generally too angry, unlikeable, and bitter be very funny, even as parody (while even the most annoying, pedantic leftists make for good targets of hilarious satire). But Republicans have to pretend Trump is just joking to justify the historic embarrassment of falling for a rapist criminal who explicitly told them, “I don’t care about you, I just want your vote.”
Trump isn’t doing and won’t do anything to fix prices, housing, healthcare, housing or crime. Trump will likely crash the economy, as Republican presidents always do. Yet the fakes still voting Republican will keep inventing newer, dumber lies to blame woke trans DEI migrant pronouns for their unhappiness — rather than the billionaire rightwing oligarchs actually causing the world’s problems.
@Fortune: Maybe I’m wrong and I’ll go to hell for it, but I read your messages through a heavy veil of bad faith. Every message these days is “of course if it’s bad I’m against it, but really it’s much more likely that Trump’s concentration camps are really just an attempt to solve the housing crisis.”
This felt like more of the same. “Sure, IF it turns out to be illegal then lets all be against it, but really Trump is great.”
As I said, maybe I’m reading you wrong. And maybe when you stop posting messages that start “I couldn’t possibly know the truth here, but this sounds…” I’ll begin to assume some better faith from you.
Angela Merkel probably didn’t like Trump, but there’s no reason to think she made this up:
As to the attitude of the MAGA Cult to overt law-breaking. Townhall.com sums it up nicely: