News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
MOST READ
Get some leverage.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Open Government
Tristiaña Hinton/The Fulcrum
President Trump, who gets to pick 32 inspectors general, has moved to replace more than half of them.
Federal waste watchdogs, undermined by Trump, get some GOP backing
Jun 25 2020
In a matter of weeks, President Trump has thrown into question the future of a decades-old bedrock of open government: Independent watchdogs working inside federal agencies to find wrongdoers and root out waste.
But his recent spate of inspector general firings, combined with public threats and not-so-subtle efforts to undercut the authority of many others in those jobs, are only the most serious actions of a president who came to office as a skeptic but is now seeking re-election as a full-throated opponent of such independent oversight.
Trump's accelerating antagonism is more than another sign of how emphatically he's abandoned his "drain the swamp" 2016 campaign mantra. It's also drawn unusual campaign season antagonism from several influential Republicans in Congress, who last week launched legislation that would make it tougher for Trump to dismiss inspectors general and restrict who he could name as a government watchdog.
<p>Since Trump arrived at the White House, the leadership of 28 of the 73 inspectors general offices in the government (two out of every five) has changed at least once. And at least one such replacement has happened at 17 of the 32 agencies or departments (more than half) where the president has the authority to directly appoint the inspector general.</p>
<p>Eleven agencies — including the CIA, the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services — are now operating with acting, not permanent IGs. These positions have been vacant for a combined total of more than 26 years.</p>
<p>The Department of Defense, which has a budget of more than $700 billion this year (about $2 billion per day), has not had a permanent inspector general since the seventh year of the Obama administration.</p>
<p>The problem with having a bunch of acting inspectors general instead of permanent ones was addressed in a recent report from the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan group that investigates misconduct and conflicts of interest by federal officials — acting as an outsider watchdog over the work of federal watchdogs. People named to these jobs only on an interim basis, the group concluded, are "put in the position where the thoroughness or aggressiveness of their work can weaken their chance of being appointed to the permanent slot."</p>
<p>What has thrust the usually behind-the-scenes world of inspectors general into the forefront was a remarkable rapid-fire series of actions in the past three months:</p>
<p><strong>April 3</strong>: Trump told Congress he intended to fire Michael Atkinson as inspector general for the intelligence community. Atkinson got on the president's bad side for doing his job — passing up the chain of command the whistleblower complaint, which ended up spurring Trump's impeachment, about the president soliciting Ukraine's help in digging up dirt on Hunter Biden, the son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, who worked for a Ukrainian company when his father was vice president.</p>
<p><strong>April 6</strong>: Trump lambasted Christi Grimm, acting inspector general in the Department of Health and Human Services, after her staff issued a report about a severe shortage of testing kits for the coronavirus, delays in getting test results and shortages of masks and other equipment at hospitals. On May 1, he moved to replace Grimm by announcing her successor.</p>
<p><strong>April 7</strong>: Trump removed Glenn Fine, acting IG at the Pentagon, who had also been chosen by his fellow IGs just days earlier to oversee the work of the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, an independent oversight panel created by Congress to ensure the $2.2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package enacted in March was not misspent.</p>
<p><strong>May 15</strong>: Trump announces his intent to fire Steve Linick, inspector general for the State Department. Linick was investigating allegations of misbehavior by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, among other things.</p>
<p><strong>May 16</strong>: Trump fired the acting Transportation Department inspector general, Mitch Behm. He had been selected for the special economics stimulus oversight panel and also was investigating Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, the wife of Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell.</p>
<p><strong>June 11</strong>: Leaders of the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee sent a letter to House and Senate leaders warning that administration officials were arguing that more than $1 trillion of the money was exempt from oversight.</p>
<p>It was less than two years ago, on the 40th anniversary of the original inspectors general law, that IGs were being celebrated and the benefits of their oversight were being quantified and praised.</p>
<p>Michael Horowitz, inspector general for the Department of Justice and the chairman of the IGs council, reported that in 2016, then the most recent year with complete data available, his colleagues saved taxpayers more than $45 billion, engineered more than 4,800 successful criminal prosecutions and drove more than 4,300 disciplinary actions.</p>
<p>Overall, he boasted, every dollar spent on the work of IGs saved $17. And that return on investment seems to be continuing, with more than $20 billion in potential savings identified by the watchdogs so far this year.</p>
<p>Despite this record of success, the Trump administration has also attempted to undercut the IGs by slashing many of their budgets — in a seemingly ad hoc way, and largely without success. </p>
<p>For the coming year, for example, he's proposed cutting the IG budgets at six of the 16 biggest agencies, including a 7 percent reduction (to $178 million) for the Department of Homeland Security watchdog. But he's proposed increasing spending on IGs at all the rest, including a 13 percent boost (to $90 million) at HHS.</p>
<h4>Delays and GOP pushback</h4>
<p>Congress shares some responsibility for the current weaknesses in the overnight system, however, by moving slowly to fill vacancies and fill the loopholes in the law Trump has exploited to hobble the inspector general system.</p>
<p>The president has picked people for half the 16 inspector general vacancies where the president makes the nomination — but those eight have been waiting an average of 14 weeks for confirmation by a GOP-majority Senate focused much more intently on filling open judgeships.</p>
<p>Only three IG nominees have been vetted by committee and need only a vote on the Senate floor.</p>
<p>Critics point out that five of them have no experience as inspectors general or in another government oversight role.</p>
<p>Faced with mounting pressure from good government advocates, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa introduced legislation last week to strengthen protections for the inspectors general. </p>
<p>The longest-serving current Senate Republican has been known since the 1980s as a champion of vigorous government oversight, and he drafted the bill while holding up a pair of Trump nominees for senior national security jobs for two weeks — until the White House offered formal justifications for the Atkinson and Linick firings.</p><p>Grassley noted the IG law requires the president to provide Congress with advance notice of such dismissals along with a reasoning.</p><p>In introducing the legislation, Grassley tried to put a bipartisan spin on his cause by noting President Barack Obama violated the law by firing an inspector general without explanation.</p><p>He also found four other Republicans along with five Democrats to sign on to the bill from the start — a highly unusual show of bipartisanship in today's Senate, especially in an election year. The GOP cosponsors are Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, Rob Portman of Ohio and James Lankford of Oklahoma.</p><p>Grassley said the measure would beef up the notification mandate by making presidents include a "substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons," for every IG firing</p><p>His bill attempts to address concerns that Trump has named unqualified people as temporary inspectors general by requiring acting IGs come from the senior ranks of the watchdog community. To ward off any chickens guarding hen houses, the bill would bar senior agency officials from even acting temporarily as inspectors general. Other language is designed to safeguard ongoing investigations during IG transitions.</p><p>"Congress designed inspectors general to shine a bright light on waste, fraud and abuse through the federal bureaucracy," he said on the Senate floor when introducing the bill. "So IGs are the original swamp drainers."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Grassley steps up to Trump with new bill protecting inspectors general ›
- More than ever, inspectors general need stronger protection - The ... ›
- House passes bill to speed an end to inspector general vacancies ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Bjarte Rettedal/Getty Images
K Street, as the lobbying world is known, took in $903 million during the first quarter of this year.
Coronavirus caused a lobbying boom. It's hurting our democracy.
Jun 23 2020
Mizuno is a politics major at Princeton and an intern at Lobbyists 4 Good, a nonprofit crowdfunding platform for people seeking to hire lobbyists for their causes.
<p> The coronavirus pandemic has gutted the American economy. Small businesses have shuttered their doors, large corporations have filed for bankruptcy, unemployment rates have soared to the <a href="https://apnews.com/908d7a004c316baceb916112c0a35ed0" target="_blank">highest levels since the Great Depression</a> — and entire industries may need help from the government to avoid collapse. </p><p> But as millions of Americans struggle to pay their rent on time, one industry is booming. Lobbyists on Capitol Hill are in sky high demand. Corporations and special-interest groups are turning to lobbyists to help them maximize aid from the government as the economic fallout from the pandemic continues. </p><p>According to the Center for Responsive Politics, spending on federal lobbying totaled <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/what-does-coronavirus-relief-bill-have-do-ritz-carlton-it-ncna1206106" target="_blank">$903 million in the first quarter</a> of this year, matching the figure from the first three months of 2010 — the most expensive single season of lobbying on record. The $2 trillion economic recovery package enacted in March, bill, known as the CARES Act, is the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/04/coronavirus-stimulus-spurs-lobbying/" target="_blank">second most lobbied bill</a> of all time. </p><p> With the help of lobbyists, businesses are trying to secure the biggest piece possible of the relief pie. The problem, however, is that lawmakers should be listening to the voices of their constituents, not corporations with close ties to the government. In times of crisis, the lobbying boom is funneling taxpayer money away from those who need it most. </p><p> As lawmakers rush to address the pandemic, many industries are slapping "coronavirus" onto their existing agendas as a way to seek to take advantage of the current circumstances. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/us/politics/coronavirus-stimulus-lobbying.html" target="_blank">Adidas is lobbying for a provision</a> to allow people to use pretax money to purchase gym membership and fitness equipment — even as gyms around the country have been ordered closed. Drone manufacturers are asking the Trump administration to grant waivers to bypass regulations. And <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/22/coronavirus-lobbying-gush-199951" target="_blank">corporate giants like CVS and Apple</a>, whose profits have gone up during the pandemic, nonetheless lobbied to get provisions in the CARES Act. </p><p>As a result, the law is full of provisions that benefit wealthy corporations. Money allocated to corporations by the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve under the measure doesn't have to be used to support workers. Corporations may use these taxpayer-funded loans to buy back stocks, maintain profits for their shareholders or pump money into their reserves. A congressional oversight commission set up as part of the law has yet to name its chairman. Even if it does begin to function, the panel has been given limited power to access information about private companies. That means there's no guarantee the loans will actually benefit everyday Americans and their families. </p><p> The real winners of the lobbying bonanza? Lobbying firms. Take, for example, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. The firm <a href="https://time.com/5830821/federal-stimulus-spending-lobbying-brownstein/" target="_blank">raked in a whopping $11 million</a> from clients just in January, February and March — and added 33 new clients to its portfolio. The firm was paid $960,000 from three entities under Apollo Global Management, one of world's largest private equity firms, on "issues related to Covid-19 relief." It's difficult to fathom why a giant private equity firm would need coronavirus relief. The co-founder of Apollo, Joshua Harris, has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/jared-kushner-apollo-citigroup-loans.html" target="_blank">advised the Trump administration</a> on infrastructure policy and has been considered for a White House position. Disclosures show that many other lobbying firms with close ties to the administration also saw big gains in their profits. </p><p> Meanwhile, small businesses are struggling. In a <a href="https://dataforgood.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SMBReport.pdf" target="_blank">survey of 86,000 small- and medium-sized businesses</a>, Facebook reported that a third of businesses closed during the pandemic do not expect to reopen. These businesses and their employees are barely hanging on by a thread. Among hotel, cafe and restaurant employees, 94 percent reported they have no access to paid time off and 93 percent reported they have no sick leave. Food banks across America are buckling under high demand. Every minute a member of Congress spends with a corporate lobbyist is time spent away from listening to the concerns of ordinary constituents. </p><p>As Congress gears up to negotiate additional relief bills, who should have the power to influence how our tax dollars are allocated? At <a href="https://www.lobbyists4good.org/" target="_blank">Lobbyists 4 Good</a>, we believe power should rest in the hands of ordinary Americans. We allow individuals to start crowdfunded campaigns to hire advocates for their cause. One of our current campaigns is pressing <a href="https://www.lobbyists4good.org/coronavirus" target="_blank">Congress to prioritize public health</a> in the next coronavirus response legislation — not on bailing out corporations. These lobbying efforts rely on everyday people for funding through small donations — not large corporations or wealthy donors. </p><p>Businesses big and small have been shuttered by the pandemic, and they should have their voices heard by lawmakers. But the government's purpose, especially in times of crisis, must be to serve the interests of the American people, not corporations.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Voters took the lead on political change in 2018 - The Fulcrum ›
- AOC, Ted Cruz still working on lobbying ban for ex-lawmakers - The ... ›
- Democracy reform's welcome arrival as a Democratic cause - The ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Pool/Getty Images
Claim: The President may sign an executive order limiting freedom of speech. Fact check: Mixed
May 29 2020
Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or cl… https://t.co/2Z5Yb4iJbA— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump)1590577912.0
The president can issue an executive on anything he wants, but its impact and legality is a question. Trump signed an executive order that could limit social media companies' legal protections after Twitter began fact-checking on his posts.
According to The Washington Post, lawmakers in Congress and a variety of legal experts from across the political spectrum "doubted the legality of Trump's draft proposal and feared its implications for free speech."
Some in the tech industry even began quietly discussing their legal options, including a potential lawsuit challenging Trump's order, the Post reported.
From Your Site Articles
- How disinformation could sway the 2020 election - The Fulcrum ›
- Joaquin Castro tweet about Trump donors sparks privacy fight - The ... ›
- Trump threatens Twitter after being fact checked - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Fred Schilling / Supreme Court
The Supreme Court's next oral arguments will be the first using a live audio feed for the public.
Covid consequence: Supreme Court will let you listen in live
Apr 13 2020
The Supreme Court finally decided to move cautiously into the 20th century on Monday, announcing that several of its next oral arguments will be broadcast live.
The notoriously opaque court revealed the history-making change in a brief news release explaining plans to break with several precedents during the coronavirus outbreak.
The decision is by far the biggest win for government transparency advocates brought about by Covid-19, which has so far been cited much more often for pushing state and local governments to conduct emergency business in the relative shadows.
<p>Half the remaining cases of the term will be argued on telephone conference calls, another first for the court, with the justices and lawyers calling in remotely "in keeping with public health guidance in response to Covid-19," the statement said. "The court anticipates providing a live audio feed of these arguments to news media."</p>
<p>Several of those outlets reported the audio feed for the 10 arguments in May would be made available to the general public although few details were provided immediately.</p>
<p>Many state and local courts have long allowed audio and video broadcasts and a limited number of federal district and appellate courts have experimented with the idea and continue to allow it on a limited basis.</p>
<p>It wasn't until 2010 that audio recordings for all of the Supreme Court's arguments were posted on its website at the end of the week,</p>
<p>The high court has resisted the idea of live audio or TV, with some justices concerned that such coverage would detract from the court's somber atmosphere and cause attorneys — and perhaps even some justices — to grandstand.</p>
<p>Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan testified in March 2019 before a House Appropriations subcommittee, the first time justices had appeared before a congressional committee since 2014. Both expressed reservations about audio and video coverage of court proceedings.</p>
<p>"We don't want access at the expense of damaging the decision-making process," Alito told the subcommittee.</p>
<p>Anthony Marcum with the <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/r-street-institute" target="_self">R Street Institute</a>, a conservative good government think tank, lauded the court's decision as sending "a powerful message that the court remains open for business."</p>
<p>"After this current health crisis is over, there is little reason why the court should not continue this practice," Marcum said.</p>
<p>The response from the group Fix the Court, which advocates for transparency and other reforms in the judicial system, was a bit more pointed. Said Executive Director Gabe Roth: "Supreme Court arguments going live next month? And all it took was a global pandemic."</p>
<p>"The court will have no excuse come next term to maintain a live audio policy for every argument, and we'll do our part to make sure that live video is not too far behind," Roth said.</p><p>Among the cases that will be heard live, which were originally supposed to be argued in March and April, are two involving President Trump's efforts to withhold his tax returns and other financial records from Congress and a Manhattan prosecutor. Another involves whether presidential electors may be required to vote in December for the candidate who wins the state's popular vote in November.</p><p>Decisions in these cases will likely be issued during the current term, which normally ends in June but may need to be extended into July. The other cases from March and April that won't be heard in May will be carried over to the next term.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Coronavirus spurs closing of public meetings and records - The ... ›
- Few states shine in their transparency of ethics enforcement - The ... ›
- Transparency is a weapon that is ruining Congress - The Fulcrum ›
- Trump undercuts big win for transparency advocates - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less