Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, a longtime champion of government oversight, plans to introduce legislation Thursday to strengthen the inspectors general system in the wake of several firings by President Trump.
While Grassley is usually supportive of Trump's positions, he had become increasingly dissatisfied with the president's removal of IGs, putting a hold on several presidential nominations to force the administration to provide more detailed explanations for the dismissals.
Congress in 1978 created the inspectors general system, in which each federal agency has an internal watchdog looking for wasteful spending and employee misconduct. It has gradually grown to more than 70 IGs.
Grassley, who announced his plans in a Washington Post op-ed, noted that the most recent update to the law governing inspectors general was approved in 2008 and requires the president to provide Congress with advance notice of the firing of an inspector general along with reasoning for the dismissal.
Trump has fired several IGs in recent months, criticized others and attempted to undermine the oversight components included in massive spending legislation passed to help offset the economic damage caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
Two of the most notable firings occurred in April and May. First Trump fired Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community, because he forwarded the whistleblower's complaint that led to Trump's impeachment earlier this year.
Then Steve Linick, the State Department's IG, was fired while investigating the conduct of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
President Barack Obama also violated removal requirements, Grassley wrote, in his firing of the AmeriCorp inspector general without providing an explanation.
Grassley said his new legislation will beef up the mandate that the notification of firing by the president include a "substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons."
His legislation also attempts to address concerns that Trump has named unqualified candidates as temporary inspectors general by requiring that acting IGs be selected from the senior ranks within the watchdog community.
Grassley also hopes to safeguard ongoing investigations during the transition in inspectors general.
"It's really this simple: If inspectors general are doing good work, they should stay; if not, they should go. If the president is going to remove an inspector general, there'd better be a good reason," Grassley wrote.
Grassley has served in the Senate since 1981. He represents Iowa, where recent polling shows Trump in a dead heat with former Vice President Joe Biden.
An Independent Voter's Perspective on Current Political Divides
In the column, "Is Donald Trump Right?", Fulcrum Executive Editor, Hugo Balta, wrote:
For millions of Americans, President Trump’s second term isn’t a threat to democracy—it’s the fulfillment of a promise they believe was long overdue.
Is Donald Trump right?
Should the presidency serve as a force for disruption or a safeguard of preservation?
Balta invited readers to share their thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
David Levine from Portland, Oregon, shared these thoughts...
I am an independent voter who voted for Kamala Harris in the last election.
I pay very close attention to the events going on, and I try and avoid taking other people's opinions as fact, so the following writing should be looked at with that in mind:
Is Trump right? On some things, absolutely.
As to DEI, there is a strong feeling that you cannot fight racism with more racism or sexism with more sexism. Standards have to be the same across the board, and the idea that only white people can be racist is one that I think a lot of us find delusional on its face. The question is not whether we want equality in the workplace, but whether these systems are the mechanism to achieve it, despite their claims to virtue, and many of us feel they are not.
I think if the Democrats want to take back immigration as an issue then every single illegal alien no matter how they are discovered needs to be processed and sanctuary cities need to end, every single illegal alien needs to be found at that point Democrats could argue for an amnesty for those who have shown they have been Good actors for a period of time but the dynamic of simply ignoring those who break the law by coming here illegally is I think a losing issue for the Democrats, they need to bend the knee and make a deal.
I think you have to quit calling the man Hitler or a fascist because an actual fascist would simply shoot the protesters, the journalists, and anyone else who challenges him. And while he definitely has authoritarian tendencies, the Democrats are overplaying their hand using those words, and it makes them look foolish.
Most of us understand that the tariffs are a game of economic chicken, and whether it is successful or not depends on who blinks before the midterms. Still, the Democrats' continuous attacks on the man make them look disloyal to the country, not to Trump.
Referring to any group of people as marginalized is to many of us the same as referring to them as lesser, and it seems racist and insulting.
We invite you to read the opinions of other Fulrum Readers:
Trump's Policies: A Threat to Farmers and American Values
The Trump Era: A Bitter Pill for American Renewal
Federal Hill's Warning: A Baltimorean's Reflection on Leadership
Also, check out "Is Donald Trump Right?" and consider accepting Hugo's invitation to share your thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
The Fulcrum will select a range of submissions to share with readers as part of our ongoing civic dialogue.
We offer this platform for discussion and debate.