In the dead of night, on Friday to Saturday, the sudden dismissal of powerful inspectors from key federal agencies has reached a new dimension in Trump’s political bloodbath of the “Deep State”elite.
Inspectors General (IG) of federal agencies play a crucial role in the United States, overseeing government control and promoting transparency and accountability within the agencies; at least on paper. Their primary responsibilities include preventing cases of fraud, waste and misappropriation of resources, investigating and uncovering such incidents within their respective agencies and holding those responsible accountable.
Another main responsibility is financial auditing: internal controllers conduct regular audits of the financial administration to ensure that federal funds are used correctly and efficiently. In addition, they review programs and projects to identify areas for improvement and make recommendations for optimization. The results of their work are summarized in reports to Congress and the public, ensuring transparency.
Theory and practice of democratic transparency
On paper, this all looks good and the construct appears to be a guarantee for democratic control and a strong bulwark against fraud and corruption in government agencies. But it seems only that! For what happens if the IGs of federal agencies themselves are part of the systemic fraud in government agencies? If they themselves form a pillar of the so-called “Deep State”comprising quasi-unkündbar officials who make policy where it really matters, without ever being elected?
Just a conspiracy theory? The best example that this is not a theory, but a fact, is offered by the US Defense Ministry with a massive budget of nearly a trillion dollars.
In the last audit published in 2024, the US Defense Ministry reported missing assets worth $824 billion. The assets simply vanished. Independent experts discuss state accountability and fiscal responsibility, mentioning even higher values: the talk is of up to $2.5 trillion in assets that have been spirited away over the years from US bases around the world. War is not just a lucrative business for the US arms industry on the back of the working population.
Have these gigantic discrepancies in the Pentagon’s budget led to a sharper financial control and stricter accountability within the US Defense Ministry? Of course not. From the Inspector General, there was, as every year, some criticism and the media brought a rhetorical outcry that was forgotten the next day and everything continued as before.
The Pentagon outstrips all other US ministries in terms of its missing assets, but the system is the same everywhere. However, Trump’s opening move to drain this part of the state swamp has sparked outrage from neoconservative politicians and media. Proceedings are brought to the field.
Trump’s power grab?
Accordingly, Trump’s dismissal action directly violates US federal law, which requires the Congress to be informed 30 days prior to the dismissal of an Inspector General. Therefore, Trump was immediately attacked not only by Democratic Party representatives, but also from his own Republican ranks: US Senator Chuck Grassley (a Republican from Iowa) highlighted the legal requirements not being met and called for an explanation from President Trump. In a statement, he said, “There could be good reasons why the IGs were dismissed. We need to know that, if it is so. I would like to hear an explanation from President Trump. Regardless, the legally required 30-day detailed notice of departure was not presented to Congress.”
Hannibal “Mike”Ware, chairman of the “Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency”also expressed legal concerns regarding the dismissals. In his letter to the White House, he argued that the measures taken did not suffice to legally dismiss the IGs, as confirmed by the Senate and raised the question of the legality of the dismissals. Ware’s dual role as IG for the “Small Business Administration”and as acting IG for the Social Security Administration positions him as a central figure in this developing story, which challenges the independence of these alleged control bodies.
Political reactions and consequences
The reaction of the Congress was swift and, at times, bipartisan. Trump’s opponents focused their criticism on the potential for more corruption and less accountability through Trump’s action. Democrat Gerald E. Connolly, a leading member of the congressional oversight and government reform committee, even described the measure as a “Friday night coup”against transparency and warned that the exchange of allegedly “independent”IGs for “politically appointed”Trump loyalists could undermine public trust in government agencies, conveniently forgetting that the IGs he described as “independent”were, in fact, elected by a democratic majority in the Congress.
On the Republican side, James Comer, chairman of the aforementioned congressional committee, emphasized the need to identify inefficiencies in the IGs, as exemplified by the Pentagon, rather than attacking the dismissals openly. Instead, one should strive to create a system that evaluates the performance of the IGs.
Impact on government functions
The removal of these Inspectors General has sparked a heated debate over government control. There are two opposing approaches:
One side emphasizes the crucial role of the Inspectors General in uncovering fraud, waste and misappropriation within government agencies. Their absence or replacement by less independent control bodies could lead to less stringent controls, particularly in departments handling sensitive or extensive operations such as defense, diplomatic relations and energy policy. In theory, this is correct, but not in practice: see, for example, the Pentagon and the massive sum of missing assets. The other side goes into the “Deep State”and how far IGs pursue opposing political goals, braking or even stopping the democratically elected president in important policy fields or measures. In his first term, Trump, for instance, twice gave the Pentagon a clear and unambiguous order to withdraw all US troops from Syria. The US Army still has its bases there today. Outlook
The immediate consequences of these dismissals have left 15 IG positions vacant, including key posts in the 18 US intelligence agencies. Neoconservative US war hawks now fear that these gaps will be filled with people who align more with the political agenda of the current Trump administration.
It can be expected that in the near future, the debate over these dismissals will dominate the media. Ultimately, it is not about constitutional principles, even if these are demonstrated prominently, but about the future of the “Deep State.”It is not about the allegedly democratic transparency that allegedly only legally protected Inspectors General can guarantee, but about how far these IGs can neutralize Trump politically.