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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less