When President Donald Trump removed multiple Inspectors General (IGs) in January 2025, there were dire predictions that doing so would end objective, internal oversight of federal agencies and weaken the fight against fraud, notwithstanding the fact that he was not the first president to fire IGs.
Yet today, IGs continue their work with stronger democratic accountability and form the bedrock in the relentless and prominent counter-fraud effort being led by the White House, even as the president’s lawful authority to manage appointees such as IGs has withstood judicial scrutiny.
The vigorous efforts of Inspectors General continue because their independence is rooted in the text of the Inspector General Act, not life tenure or wishful thinking about what some would like IGs to be. That statute creates powerful watchdogs to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. It does not turn them into a fourth branch of government, another arm of Congress, or specialized judges with authority to enjoin federal agencies. Rather, it places IGs under the “general supervision” of the agency head they serve, and gives them a reporting line to the public, the Attorney General, and the Congress. And, importantly, while IGs provide reports to the Congress, they are not commanded by it.
That design reflects the Constitution. All executive power is vested in a President, who is accountable to voters for how the government is run. In America, elections have consequences. If, as some activists contend, IG “independence” implies that the presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed IGs answer to no one in the Executive Branch, the significant powers they wield would not be electorally accountable. That would be both bad constitutional law and bad governance.
Real independence for IGs is narrower and more principled. It means freedom from improper interference in specific audits and investigations, paired with strict adherence to the IG Act, due process, professional standards, and the facts. It does not mean hostility to the administration, isolation from the agency, secrecy from elected leadership, or a license to pursue political agendas under the guise of oversight.
The mission of each of the IGs, whether for a large Cabinet agency or a small federal commission, is to make American government deliver on the priorities of voters: to root out fraud, waste, and abuse; to protect taxpayers’ funds; and to promote efficient, lawful government. This aligns perfectly with any serious agenda to secure the border, fight fraud, “drain the swamp,” prevent monarchies, and stop federal programs from being hijacked by special interests.
Many IGs are the chief law enforcement officers for their agencies and a properly supervised, law‑abiding IG corps is much more than a tool of a “Make America Great Again” administration. Rather, it is a cornerstone of efforts in any administration to detect and prevent fraud, and expose mismanagement, corruption, and bureaucratic resistance to lawful policy.
Over time, the IG Act has been amended in ways that concentrate substantial power in IG offices. That makes it even more important to keep expectations tethered to the statute and the Constitution. Inflating IG “independence” into a theory that they answer only to Congress or to no one but themselves has encouraged some IGs in the past to drift outside their legal authority and undermine the president’s duty and responsibility to ensure the laws are faithfully executed.
A reset is long overdue. IGs should act transparently to the maximum extent allowed by law; they should be cautious where national security, privacy, and ongoing prosecutions require restraint, and steadfast in reporting their findings — even when politically inconvenient. But they should also be clear about whom they work for: the American people, part of a constitutional structure in which the lawfully elected president leads the Executive Branch, Congress legislates and oversees, and wherein IGs serve inside the Executive Branch as watchdogs, law enforcers, and experts about the agencies where they serve.
So long as IGs follow the law and the Constitution, they will remain democratically accountable, independent in their professional judgment, and appropriately aligned with any administration that is serious about cleaning up government and protecting the public purse.
Eric Soskin served as the Senate-confirmed Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation from 2021 to 2025.
