At Forum, former inspectors general discuss keeping government honest

When President Trump fired more than a dozen inspectors general in January—independent figures appointed by the president or Congress to investigate legal noncompliance, waste, and fraud at federal departments and agencies—the media dubbed it a “Friday night purge.” At an NYU Law Forum on April 16, three former inspectors general (IGs)—two of them part of the purge—joined a panel discussion moderated by Rachel Barkow, Charles Seligson Professor of Law. The panelists explained the importance of IGs and considered current threats posed to their mission.

Watch video of the NYU Law Forum on the role of inspectors general: 

Glenn Fine, who was inspector general of the Department of Justice before serving as acting inspector general of the Department of Defense, noted that the latter role dates back to the Revolutionary War. But most IG positions in the United States government—74 in total—originated in two separate acts passed by Congress in 1978 and 2008, respectively. The first act, Fine said, was a part of post-Watergate reform, while the second bolstered IGs’ independence.

Christi Grimm, inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services until the purge, stressed the importance of that independence. “In addition to…that role of independence and credibility and transparency,” she said, “the work really does benefit people…. No matter what you’re working on, you can translate that into the lives of anybody that you’re speaking to.” Barkow noted that in fiscal year 2023 alone, IGs had saved US taxpayers an estimated $93 billion in eliminated waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mark Greenblatt, who was inspector general of the Department of the Interior before the purge, underscored Barkow’s point. “We are there to make sure that they’re effective and efficient with the use of your tax dollars…. We are not beholden to a political administration, to a political party, to a political ideology,” he said. “We are there to be objective fact-finders.”

Grimm is one of eight purged inspectors general suing the Trump administration for unlawful termination and asking to be reinstated, alleging that the president broke the law by firing them without the required 30-day notice to Congress or a specific rationale. The panelists expressed concerns that IG roles, traditionally nonpartisan by strict design, could become political footballs during future presidential transitions, with appointees selected for their partisan leanings. In the past, IGs have often remained in their roles even as the White House switches parties.

“One of the key things is looking at who [Trump] nominates in our place,” said Greenblatt. “He just submitted two nominees, and I’ve been quite vocal about these two nominees being the opposite of what the American taxpayer should want. These are folks with heavy partisan experience, which is anathema to who we are and what we do.”

The panelists contrasted the traditional methods of IGs with the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). “[DOGE] seems to be cutting agencies and programs and contracts,” said Fine, “and it’s hard to do that without really knowing what goes on in those programs and agencies the way an IG does. When DOGE first came in, I think IGs were optimistic and hopeful that they would consult with the IGs…. But from what I understand, DOGE has not interacted much with IGs.”

Fine spoke to the balancing act of an IG. “You want to be independent from the agency,” he said, “but you don’t want to be so isolated that you don’t understand what’s going on…. I was in a meeting once with [Attorney General John Ashcroft’s] staff, and he said, ‘Cooperate with the IG. Getting an IG audit or investigation is like going to the dentist,’ he said. ‘It’s painful when you’re in the dentist chair, but you come out healthier.’ And I appreciated that. That was right. The only thing I didn’t appreciate was when I was walking around the Justice Department they would say, ‘Here comes the dentist.’”