Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

It's time to make it easier for watchdogs to work without interference

Steve Linick

State Department Inspector General Steve Linick was fired by President Donald Trump.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Hempowicz is director of public policy and Wasser is a policy attorney at the Project On Government Oversight, a nonpartisan group that investigates corruption, misconduct and conflicts of interest in the federal government.

This is the last in a series advocating for parts of legislation soon to be proposed in the House, dubbed the Protecting Our Democracy Act, designed to improve democracy's checks and balances by curbing presidential power.


Last year, while a global pandemic and the accompanying economic uncertainty ravaged the country, political corruption was ranked the second most important issue among voters. This wasn't an anomaly — the American public has ranked "political corruption" and "corrupt government officials" as one of their leading fears for the past five years.

It's clear we must strengthen the integrity of our government institutions so the public gains confidence that corrupt actors will be exposed and held accountable.

Greater protections for whistleblowers and independent government watchdogs will go a long way toward rooting out this corruption the public is so concerned about.

Whistleblowers support the system of checks and balances in our government by speaking up and reporting waste, fraud, illegalities or abuses of power that might otherwise go unnoticed and unaddressed. But they do so at great personal and professional risk.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In many instances, whistleblowers themselves become the subject of retaliatory internal or criminal investigations, monopolizing the truth-teller's resources. These investigations, as well as other forms of retaliation, have a chilling effect, preventing others from coming forward to expose wrongdoing and lending credence to fears that corrupt government officials are allowed to operate with impunity. Because of this, better protections are necessary to ensure whistleblowers are able to make their disclosures and combat corruption and abuse of power within our government.

Currently, federal whistleblowers are in a no-win situation. Most cannot access federal courts to enforce their protections. And the agency that's supposed to help protect them, the Merit Systems Protection Board, has not had any of its seats filled for more than two years — creating a backlog of more than 3,000 cases.

Further, the culture surrounding whistleblowers has created an almost reflexive response to shoot the messenger (through whistleblower retaliation) for reporting the wrongdoing rather than addressing the actual, systemic issues in the government that the whistleblower is disclosing.

To this end, the Protecting Our Democracy Act would strengthen whistleblower protections in many ways. Most importantly, it would allow whistleblowers to enforce their protections in a court in front of a jury of their peers — instead of the MSPB, a quasi-judicial agency within the executive branch.

The bill also would limit opportunities for government officials to disclose a whistleblower's identity. It would make it illegal to retaliate against whistleblowers by opening meritless investigations into their conduct. It would require administrative judges and employees who work with whistleblowers to undergo special training. And it would create a secure mechanism for intelligence community whistleblowers to provide information directly to Congress.

Strengthening whistleblower protections by enacting this legislation can help restore the check on corruption that is desperately needed within the federal government.

Inspectors general, the independent government watchdogs that investigate federal agencies and report their findings to Congress, also need stronger protections now more than ever.

The nature of their jobs is to provide independent oversight without political interference or retaliation, a fundamental difference from other political appointees nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. However, under current law, a president can remove IGs for any reason — as evidenced by the removals and replacements that Donald Trump carried out in response to oversight of his administration.

While the law prohibits agency heads from interfering in an IG investigation, this limitless removal authority allows any president or agency head to improperly block any effort that an IG undertakes to conduct independent oversight, by simply removing the watchdog rather than interfering in a politically sensitive inquiry. To conduct robust, apolitical oversight, IGs need independence both from the agency they are overseeing and from the president.

Congress responded to the rash of seemingly politically motivated firings of IGs during Trump's final year in office with the introduction of a handful of bills to protect them from removal as retaliation. One such proposal, which is now part of the Protecting Our Democracy Act, would require the president to have "good cause" for removal. The administration would have to provide Congress proof of the cause, require inspector general offices to report to Congress on any investigations underway at the time of a removal (to ensure those could move forward independently), and enhance congressional reporting requirements around IG vacancies. These fixes would bolster the independence of inspectors general and ensure they remain free from retaliation while providing the American taxpayers with independent oversight.

Stronger protections for whistleblowers and inspectors general would advance the bipartisan ideal that a functioning democracy relies on robust checks and balances. Whistleblowers should be able to make disclosures free from retaliation, just as IGs should be able to perform their jobs with integrity without facing political interference. These reforms would ensure that accountability and transparency remain the driving force in restoring key elements of our democracy.

Read More

What Democracy Demands of Its Leaders When Disasters Strike

Firefighters continue battling Palisades fire as flames rage across Los Angeles, California, United States on January 09, 2025.

(Photo by Official Flickr Account of CAL FIRE / Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images)

What Democracy Demands of Its Leaders When Disasters Strike

An almost unimaginable tragedy is unfolding in Los Angeles, California. On Sunday, the Washington Post reported, "Four active fires in the Los Angeles region have burned over 40,000 acres — an area bigger than San Francisco … with flames claiming more than 12,000 structures and displacing tens of thousands.” Twelve people have lost their lives because of the fires.

Donald Trump’s response has been stunning, though not surprising. Instead of steadiness and solidarity, he has offered falsehoods, fictions, and blame. As in other things, he has departed from democratic traditions to which other Republicans have committed themselves.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stronger Winds Threaten Further Destruction In Fire-Ravaged Southern California

Firefighters from the Los Angeles County Fire Department stand vigilant as they battle wildfires in Los Angeles while several blazes continue to tear through the region on January 10, 2025.

(Photo by Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Stronger Winds Threaten Further Destruction In Fire-Ravaged Southern California

Since the fires ignited in and around Los Angeles, many residents have returned to their neighborhoods, which are still smoldering, despite the ongoing threat of new fires and the prevailing unrest in the nation's second-largest city. For some, this marked their first opportunity to witness the extent of the devastation as the region, home to 13 million people, faces the significant challenge of recovery and rebuilding.

Fire officials are concerned over strengthening winds this week as Investigators are exploring various potential ignition sources for the large fires that have resulted in at least 16 fatalities and the destruction of thousands of homes and businesses.

Keep ReadingShow less
Senators’ credibility will be judged alongside Trump’s Cabinet picks

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald Trump's pick to be secretary of health and human services, visited the Capitol on Dec. 19.

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Senators’ credibility will be judged alongside Trump’s Cabinet picks

There are roughly 1,200 positions in the federal government that require Senate confirmation, including the senior officials who make up the president’s Cabinet. The first Cabinet official was confirmed in 1789 when the Senate unanimously approved President George Washington’s nomination of Alexander Hamilton to be treasury secretary.

The confirmation or denial process is a matter of 100 senators making judgement calls to determine whether a nominee is professionally qualified, exhibits leadership skills, is ethically fit, is morally just, doesn’t carry “baggage” and has the temperament for the job.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump and Joe Biden in the Oval Office
President-elect Donald Trump and President Joe Biden meet in the Oval Office on Nov. 13.
Jabin Botsford /The Washington Post via Getty Images

Why distrust in powerful politicians is part of a functioning democracy

Surveys suggest that in many western democracies, political trust is at rock bottom. Scandals, corruption, faltering economies, conspiracy theories and swirling disinformation are all playing their part. But is it really such a bad thing for people living in a democracy to distrust their government?

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly, we talk to political scientist Grant Duncan about why he  thinks a certain level of distrust and skepticism of powerful politicians is actually healthy for democracy. And about how populists, like Donald Trump, manage to use people’s distrust in political elites to their advantage.

Keep ReadingShow less