Skip to content

Employees from government oversight detail their concerns about potential reprisals under the Trump administration, as outlined in a recently unveiled Senate report

Federal investigators, tasked with rooting out misconduct, corruption, and abuse within government departments, have been dismissed by President Donald Trump in a total of 19 instances.

Trump administration officials under investigation express concerns about potential reprisals in a...
Trump administration officials under investigation express concerns about potential reprisals in a recent Senate report on government oversight.

Employees from government oversight detail their concerns about potential reprisals under the Trump administration, as outlined in a recently unveiled Senate report

In a troubling development, a report by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has highlighted concerns about President Donald Trump's actions regarding the removal of Inspectors General (IGs) and their impact on the critical work of rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse.

Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., the ranking member on the committee, has expressed his concerns about the governmentwide staffing cuts compromising these offices' ability to conduct audits, evaluations, and investigations. According to the report, the President's actions put the critical work at risk, undermine the independence of these nonpartisan watchdogs, and send a message of intimidation.

The report features anonymous testimony from employees at various offices of inspectors general. One OIG employee stated that they now have to do their work based on who's in power and everyone is operating out of fear of being fired at any time. Another employee expressed worry about their job security and potential threats to their family.

Trump's actions have led to the dismissal of 19 agency watchdogs, including the IG for the U.S. Agency for International Development, who was fired after reporting that the agency's effective elimination would make it more difficult to conduct oversight of foreign aid. During Trump's second inauguration week, he fired 18 IGs, including six appointed during his first term.

Critics argue that the savings estimated by the administration are inflated. The panel estimates that if agencies implemented all open recommendations from the 19 fired IGs, it could save the federal government $175 billion. In contrast, the administration's actions to remove IGs and replace them with unprofessional DOGE operators disregards the practices of independent oversight, and DOGE is failing to effectively cut costs compared to the IGs that were fired.

The administration's actions have also created an environment of intimidation that makes it difficult for IGs to do their job. Sen. Gary Peters states that Trump doesn't want IGs looking into potentially illegal or corrupt practices and has created an environment of intimidation. The nine IGs who remain in office and have reported to the Senate HSGAC that they risk being removed if they continue their independence and criticism of the government are not explicitly named or detailed in the provided search results.

Another OIG employee indicates that their IG workforce is expected to shrink by about 10-15% and may not be able to complete all planned audits this year. OIG staffers have shared concerns about their continued independence and low morale. One OIG employee mentions a deferred resignation program, hiring freeze, reduced budget, attrition, and retirements, which have led to a 30% staff loss in their office.

Trump has characterized the fired IGs as "rogue, partisan bureaucrats who have weaponized the justice system against their political enemies." However, the report states that the President's actions put the critical work to root out fraud, waste, and abuse at risk, undermine the independence of these nonpartisan watchdogs, and send a message of intimidation.

Sen. Peters argues that the American people want IGs to do their job aggressively. The report concludes that the President's actions pose a significant risk to the critical work of IGs and the integrity of the federal government.

Read also: