Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

It's more clear now than ever: Inspectors general need stronger protections

Opinion

President Donald Trump

President Trump "made an apparent attempt to undermine the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee when he replaced the acting inspector general who had been named to lead it," writes POGO's Danielle Brian.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Brian is executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a nonpartisan group that investigates misconduct and conflicts of interest by federal officials.

Government oversight is under attack right now.

In just a few days last week, President Trump removed an inspector general for doing his job, stalled operations of the new Pandemic Response Accountability Committee and attacked an acting inspector general for releasing a report that he didn't like. These actions undermined all IGs across the federal government — the independent government watchdogs charged with investigating federal agencies and departments and holding their behavior accountable.

Trump's actions exposed just how vulnerable inspectors general are, making clear that greater independence is needed. Inspectors general currently serve at the pleasure of the president, and one perceived misstep can cost an IG their job, as we saw when Trump fired Michael Atkinson as inspector general for the intelligence community.


Now we're set to rely on inspectors general to oversee more than $2 trillion in emergency spending. That's an amount almost half the size of the entire annual federal budget, and the president will be able to remove any of them at-will if he doesn't like what he sees. Indeed, Trump made an apparent attempt to undermine the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee when he replaced the acting inspector general who had been named to lead it.

Independent oversight of the coronavirus economic rescue package will be crucial to making sure that taxpayer dollars go to those who need it most, not to the politically well-connected. In order to ensure oversight is conducted independently, Congress must pass a law protecting inspectors general from unwarranted removal by the president. And it needs to do so right now.

Inspectors general were created to make sure Congress has eyes and ears within executive agencies. Through audits, investigations and work with whistleblowers, these watchdogs are ensuring that you as a taxpayer are getting the greatest possible value from an executive branch that is supposed to serve you.

Failing to give all inspectors general protection against getting fired other than "for cause," like those enjoyed by the members of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the IG at the U.S. Postal Service, would be tantamount to Congress closing its eyes, throwing money at a problem — and just hoping for the best.

Congress last revamped the laws governing IGs a dozen years ago, most notably by giving them law enforcement powers. The House version of the bill, passed with strong bipartisan support, would have prevented any president from removing an IG for anything but good cause — such as violation of the law, neglect of duty and abuse of authority — but those protections were cut out in the Senate. Congress should now finish what the House started in 2008.

Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, who led that effort, introduced legislation last week that would give inspectors general for-cause removal protections and seven year-terms. Fellow Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut says he will push a companion bill in the Senate, and I sincerely hope this effort gains steam.

With hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars on the line, we cannot afford to leave our federal watchdogs unprotected. The stakes are too high to allow relief funds to end up in the pockets of the politically connected at the expense of families trying to make rent.

There's no real "success" to be found after a pandemic. This is undoubtedly a crisis that has shaken us to our core and will have effects for years or even decades to come. But Congress can and should mitigate loss where possible — including loss of money to waste or fraud that could have gone to hardworking families.

To do that, they need to bolster IG independence for this current crisis and beyond.

Read More

Guarding What? The Moral Cost of Militarizing Our Cities

Protestors in Chicago, August 2025

Credit: Angeles Ponpa

Guarding What? The Moral Cost of Militarizing Our Cities

A federal judge recently blocked plans to deploy the National Guard to Chicago. But the battle over militarizing American streets is far from over. On Monday, a federal appeals court lifted a temporary restraining order and ruled that the National Guard can be deployed to Portland, Oregon, amid ongoing protests at the Macadam ICE Facility.

Every time political leaders propose sending troops into cities or float invoking the Insurrection Act, they test a fragile boundary that keeps democracy in check.

Keep ReadingShow less
Joe Manchin on Taxpayer-Funded Primaries: 'They're Locking Us Out!'

Joe Manchin

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Joe Manchin on Taxpayer-Funded Primaries: 'They're Locking Us Out!'

While appearing on CNN host Michael Smerconish’s show, former Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, now a registered independent, told Smerconish that “we have to have open primaries” in order to get candidates who prioritize representation to run and have a chance to win.

“We have to change the primary,” he added. “They are locking us out.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.

Credit: Jonah Elkowitz/Medill News Service

Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.

While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making
low light photography of armchairs in front of desk

A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making

The dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. The Founders, in one of their few major oversights, granted Congress the authority to make its own procedural rules (Article I, Section 5) without establishing any framework for how it should operate. Over time, this blank check has produced a legislative process built to serve partisan power, not public representation.

The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. The Founders imagined representatives closely tied to their constituents—one member for every 30,000 to 50,000 citizens. Today, that ratio has ballooned to one for every 765,000 in the House, and in the Senate, each member can represent tens of millions (e.g., California). As the population has grown, representation has become distant and impersonal, while procedural rules have tightened the grip of party leadership. Major issues can no longer reach the floor unless the majority party permits it. The link between citizens and decisions has nearly vanished.

Keep ReadingShow less