Two in-house investigators at U.S. intelligence agencies recently quit their jobs. There’s growing fear in Washington that they could be the start of an exodus — or a purge — of government watchdogs.
A wave of departures by inspectors general would give President-elect Donald Trump the opportunity to nominate or appoint people of his choice to the watchdog posts — leaving dozens of federal departments, agencies and offices subject to oversight by people who would owe their positions to Trump.
In the wake of Trump’s election, CIA Inspector General Robin Ashton and Intelligence Community Inspector General Thomas Monheim revealed they plan to leave government in the coming weeks. Neither cited Trump’s victory as a basis for the decision, but the timing of the announcements troubled some longtime advocates for IGs.
“I’m very disappointed that the two IGs have resigned,” said former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich. “My view is that when things get tough, IGs should not resign, but instead redouble their efforts to do their jobs. Doing a tough job in difficult circumstances is what they bargained for. I think preemptively resigning makes things too easy for the incoming administration to avoid oversight. To prematurely run for the exits, in my view, that is not the way to handle the responsibility.”
Trump frequently clashed in his first term with some IGs, who are responsible for investigating alleged misconduct by the government, and his team briefly floated a plan to call on all of them to resign, though Trump never did. This time around, Trump allies have urged the president-elect to clean house and remove from their positions all watchdogs appointed by other presidents, though it’s unclear if Trump will do so.
“I really hope that people that have a backbone don’t resign,” said Kathryn Newcomer, a professor of public policy at George Washington University and co-author of a book on IGs. “That’s very worrisome.”
Spokespeople for Ashton and Monheim did not respond directly to questions about whether Trump’s return played any role in their decisions to resign, which were first reported by the Project on Government Oversight. Both departing officials have spent decades in the federal government. But critics say the outgoing IGs should’ve announced their departures sooner and given the Biden administration the chance to nominate and confirm replacements.
Trump allies have called to replace all IGs
More than 70 inspectors general serve in posts at agencies across the federal government, tasked with ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse, and investigating alleged misconduct. They generate thousands of reports each year and claim to have identified hundreds of billions of dollars in potential savings.
Inspectors general “drive efficiency and effectiveness,” said Diana Shaw, a former acting IG at the State Department. “If you don’t have IGs, nobody is minding the store.”
Some Trump allies have urged the president-elect to install his own appointees in the watchdog posts — about half of which are subject to Senate confirmation. About 10 of the posts are currently filled by officials installed or confirmed during Trump’s first term. Another 10 are vacant.
People involved in drafting the conservative Heritage Foundation blueprint Project 2025 have advocated for wholesale replacement of inspectors general and suggested they could be viewed as part of the “deep state” Trump has crusaded against.
“In a new administration, would you rather have some fresh eyes on programs or Miss IG Debbie DC, who’s been around for half a decade, and is up to the same old stuff,” Heritage Oversight Project Director Mike Howell said in a training video obtained by ProPublica and Documented. “Fresh eyes, fresh administration, makes for better oversight, and, you know, better political management of the bureaucracy.”
But other conservative activists oppose a major overhaul of the IG ranks, arguing that many key revelations about waste and corruption in government have come from IG reports and that treating the jobs as typical political posts would undercut the credibility of their work.
“It seems more likely that there may be a demand for IG resignations or outright firings this time around, but if … going forward all IGs are merely political appointees, then what’s the purpose of having IGs? It’s a fig leaf at that point with no real independence,” said Jason Foster, founder of the whistleblower group Empower Oversight. “The value of IG objectivity would be destroyed, and their offices would just be a duplicate bureaucracy that should probably be replaced by better and more effective legislative branch-controlled oversight agencies.”
A spokesperson for the Trump transition team did not respond to questions about his plans for the inspectors general and whether he agrees with those calling for a broad purge.
While Trump’s election has led to concern among many federal government workers, particularly over his plans to dismantle civil service protections, the worries in the IG workforce are particularly acute.
“Everyone is just a nervous wreck,” said a staffer in one IG office, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.
Trump’s tense first-term relations with IGs
Trump has had an uneasy history with inspectors general from the outset of his first term. Days before Trump took office in 2017, a transition team staffer reached out to several IGs and said they could continue in their jobs temporarily while a search for replacements was underway. Talk of a wholesale replacement of IGs — which would buck longstanding precedent — caused some alarm on Capitol Hill, and Trump’s team quickly backed down, describing the action as an error by a junior aide.
“I’ve spoken with the general counsel at the White House on this topic,” House Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said at a February 2017 hearing with several inspectors general. “I think it is safe to say that that was a mistake. They wish it hadn’t happened. It is not their approach. It’s not their intention.”
During a span of six weeks in 2020, Trump ousted five inspectors general. He sacked Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s chief watchdog, after Atkinson referred to Congress a whistleblower complaint about Trump’s efforts to link Ukraine aid to an announcement of an investigation into the Biden family. Trump also removed an IG overseeing pandemic relief programs and another at the State Department.
“It was like an earthquake through the IG community,” Bromwich recalled. “People said, ‘Oh my God, why are we being focused on all of a sudden?’”
Trump and his allies have also signaled that he intends to be more insistent in his second term that his appointees and even rank-and-file government workers show loyalty to him and his administration.
Many in the IG community have their eyes on whether Trump moves to push out Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. He was nominated by President Barack Obama and served through the first Trump term and through Joe Biden’s presidency. Several of Horowitz’s reports have provided fodder for Trump’s complaints about sloppy surveillance practices, leaks to the media and signs of anti-Trump sentiment among some at the FBI.
But Trump and his allies have griped that Horowitz stopped short of concluding that political bias affected Trump-related investigations. The president-elect and GOP lawmakers have also faulted the DOJ IG for taking too long — sometimes years — to complete sensitive investigations.
The Grassley factor
One member of Congress has been viewed for decades as the patron saint of inspectors general on Capitol Hill: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). His voice could be critical to whether Trump winds up taking or ignoring some conservatives’ advice to wholesale oust IGs. In addition, several former aides to Grassley, such as former Judiciary Committee counsel and conservative firebrand Mike Davis, hold positions of influence in Trump’s orbit.
Grassley has repeatedly clashed with presidents of both parties when he has perceived them to be intruding on IGs’ independence. And he has called for case-by-case explanations when an inspector general is removed, something that might be difficult for Trump to offer in a government-wide purge. Legislation co-sponsored by Grassley and passed in 2022 requires the president to inform Congress of the “substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons” before firing or removing an IG. The law also prevents Trump or any president from naming as an acting IG someone who isn’t already working as or for such a watchdog.
Asked Wednesday whether Trump should pursue a broad ouster of IGs, Grassley replied bluntly: “No. He should not.”
“I guess it’s the case of whether he believes in congressional oversight, because I work closely with all the inspector generals and I think I’ve got a good reputation for defending them. And I intend to defend them,” the Iowa Republican added.
When Trump lashed out at IGs during his first term, Grassley publicly urged him to ease up, arguing that they were actually advancing his agenda of accountability for the sprawling federal government.
“I encourage Pres Trump 2view IGs as helpers 2hold bureaucracy accountable+draining swamp,” Grassley wrote on X in 2020.
However, last week, Grassley sent every inspector general in the federal government ademand for information about sexual harassment settlements involving employees of the watchdog offices. The move seemed to raise the possibility he could be gathering data that Trump’s team could use to target specific IG offices.
A spokesperson for Grassley did not respond to a request for comment, but advocates for the IGs expressed hope that the long-serving senator will temper whatever plans Trump may have to upend the watchdog operations — some of which were first set up in the late 1970s.
“I know from personal experience that Sen. Grassley has been a strong proponent of IGs for forever,” Bromwich said. “I would think that he’s going to be consistent with the beliefs that he has advanced throughout his career, rather than bowing to the whims of Donald Trump and some of his people, he will fight to keep the IGs independent. … That will be telling, whether Senator Grassley exercises that influence.”