Trump Tries To Fire Inspectors General, Likely Violating Federal Law

A law passed in 2022 requires the president to give Congress a "substantive rationale" for removing inspectors general. Trump has not done that.

President Donald Trump reportedly tried to fire at least a dozen inspectors general on Friday night, but that action appears to violate a law that Congress recently passed to prevent such a purge.

Reports vary on how many federal inspectors general were handed pink slips. The New York Times reports that "at least 12" of the executive branch agency watchdogs were dismissed by the president on Friday night, while The Washington Post pegs the number at 15 and ABC says at least 17 were canned.

Many of those fired were Trump appointees from his first term in office, the Post noted. It remains unclear whether the administration plans to fill the positions with newly appointed loyalists or to leave the posts vacant.

The firings will likely trigger an immediate legal battle over the president's authority to send inspectors general packing. A law passed by Congress in 2008 requires the White House to provide 30 days' notice before removing or replacing an inspector general. An updated version of that law, passed in 2022, requires that a president provide Congress with "substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons" for the removal. (That change was motivated, in part, by Trump's decision in 2020 to abruptly remove an inspector general charged with oversight of pandemic-era stimulus spending.)

In a letter to the White House after the firings, Hannibal "Mike" Ware, chairman of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency wrote: "At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss" the officials.

The Trump administration did not provide notice to Congress and has not informed lawmakers about the rationale for the firing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa), told CNN's Manu Raju on Saturday. "There may be good reason the IGs were fired," Grassley said. "We need to know that if so. I'd like further explanation from President Trump."

"These dismissals clearly violate federal law," Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.), the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, declared in a statement. Durbin called the move "a brazen attempt to rig these offices to look the other way when violations of law take place."

Some of the officials Trump tried to fire are unwilling to go without a fight. "At least one of the fired inspectors general—the State Department's Cardell Richardson Sr.—has told staff he plans to show up to work on Monday," Politico reported.

This mass dismissal comes on the heels of Trump's move earlier this week to dismiss several members from a White House board that provides oversight on privacy and civil liberties issues, including the federal government's warrantless spying programs.

So far, the second Trump administration seems less interested in draining the swamp than in pushing aside people who might sound the alarm about corruption, illegal actions, and other abuses of executive power.

Comments

[Longtobefree]

If Durbin opposes it, it must be a good thing.

[A Thinking Mind]

If Boehm writes something, my assumption is that it's an unhinged rant. Nothing beats the "Trump only won because neither side had the guts to stop him" article he penned after the election. I don't know how much more unhinged you can get as a libertarian to claim people in power should have oppressed the will of the voters harder.

The man is broken.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Perhaps he should retroactively abort himself. ENB can help.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"The man is broken"

Reluctantly, strategically.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

Yup. Boehm could tell me it's raining and I'd plan a picnic. You can't lie endlessly without consequences.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

The IGs fired are considered political appointees which the USSC said can be fired at any time by the executive. Congress can't actually modify the power over political firings.

We literally went through this in his first term as well.

[DesigNate]

Congress telling the executive who they’re allowed/not allowed to fire, in the executive branch, seems a tad bit unconstitutional. Separation of powers and all that.

[damikesc]

I still cannot figure out why civil service "protections" exist at all. They are ALL executive branch positions. Congress should have zero impact on any of those positions.

[Longtobefree]

But the only point is to separate Trump from power. That is all.

[diver64]

But it's different now that the left has to gin up outrage over something. The problem is that the outrage over firing government employees is contained in the left, government unions and the deep state. America as a whole doesn't give a rip if some bureaucrats are terminated and just voted for a guy that said he would do it.

[MoreFreedom]

Boem's point is that Trump hasn't provided "substantive rationale ..." for the IG firings. IMHO, the IGs have displayed an inability to root out corruption in their domains, which is a "substantive rationale" for replacing them. From what I saw, Horowitz's reports amounted to a failed wrist slap for criminal behavior.

Seems to me the IGs put the political class above the rest of us. That's also a substantive rationale for removing them.

And I hope you're right the president does have the ability to remove them. He is after all, the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government.

[NM Dave]

This remains to be seen. Trump will no doubt raise this argument in the suit that will be filed against him. Either way, we will find out.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

A libertarian quoting Durbin is like libertarians hanging out with their friends at The Bulwark. Oh wait...

[Gaear Grimsrud]

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

What libritarian quoted durbin?

[DesigNate]

What you did there, I see it.

[diver64]

The President has wide latitude and a "substantive reason" could be he doesn't like people who don't drink Diet Coke. To him that would be substantive. The problem with laws rammed through to benefit a political party or entrench the deep state like this one passed in 2022 is that they are worded so vaguely that they can mean anything to anyone. Trump clearly has the power to do it and just needs to tell Congress he is putting them on suspension for 30 days at which time they are terminated because....whatever. Done.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Another stupid article from a very stupid, idiotic, delusional leftist.

[MollyGodiva]

Is there anything factually wrong with it?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Jesse explained that right above you.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

The IGs fired are considered political appointees which the USSC said can be fired at any time by the executive. Congress can't actually modify the power over political firings. - Jesse

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Yes.

[Bananas]

Lmao. Thanks Reason for helping to keep my spirits up during a rough patch in meat space.

[soldiermedic76]

Nothing says libertarian like saying unelected bureaucrats, protected from being fired by law is a good thing.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Is Reason still pretending to be libertarian? With the Sullum article the other day I thought they were quitting that.

[MoreFreedom]

You hit the nail on Boehm's head, though it seems like it spread to more Reason staff.

[sarcasmic]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Are you having a stroke? Is one side of your body sagging? If so, hang up and dial 911.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

I knew the booze would get him eventually.

[sarcasmic]

“Who watches the watchmen” is a Latin phrase used by libertarians and other skeptics of power.

It was no surprise find that Trump defenders found that deeply offensive, and attacked me for saying it after he fired some watchmen watchers.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Wow. I never knew that.
I bet nobody else did either.

Why do drunks have such a high opinion of themselves?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Roman libertarians! Who would have guessed?

[VULGAR MADMAN]

They were definitely more libertarian than sarc.

[Set Us Up The Chipper]

Incontinentia Buttocks

[DesigNate]

That’d be great, if they were independent of the three branches or part of the other two tasked with watching the executive.

But since they’re part of the executive branch, they are hardly watchmen watchers.

[damikesc]

Trump has not DONE anything to make the IG's a concern. He wants anybody from Biden gone, as he should.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Quis dixit CPS tetigit filiam suam?

[Nobartium]

ALL executive officers serve at the discretion of the presidency.

If congress wants to make them unfireable, amend the constitution to give us that 4th branch.

For that matter, just kill their branch off. They are useless in this way anyway.

[шинка]

This.

The “law” referenced may itself fail a constitutional challenge.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

It does. This has been mitigated a few times. Congress is always rebuked.

[NM Dave]

It's almost a given that this law will be challenged. As of now, it's on the books and valid. I'm guessing that this status won't be permanent. This is the type of law that is good for us when we vote it in, bad for us when a president of our party wants to violate it. Democrats could well live to regret this law if it remains, which it likely won't. But then, since when do Democrats look to the future when considering knee-jerk legislation like this?

[AT]

A law passed

LOLertarians usually hate this. Unless it works against their enemies. Then they're all YAY BIG GOV!

"These dismissals clearly violate federal law,"

Isn't violating federal law like, Reason's favorite thing ever?

[Rick James]

Pimps have to register with the government, that way we know what's in them.

[mad.casual]

I'm beginning to think the word 'unconstitutional' has replaced the word 'fascism' which previously replaced 'I dislike.' in the Reason lexicon.

It's unconstitutional that this bar doesn't serve vodka martinis! Did you see how short the new Gen Z intern's skirt is? It's unconstitutional that they let xe/xer parade around the office like that!

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

The definition of coequal branches as demanded by leftists and reason.

If Dem president and GOP Congress, executive is king.

If Gop president and dem Congress, Congress is king.

If gop president and gop Congress, deep state is king.

[AT]

Keep going.

If the SCOTUS is perceived as liberal, it's defending the Constitution.

If the SCOTUS is perceived as conservative, it needs more justices to balance out the judicial activism.

If the election is won by the Dems, the people have spoken.

If the election is won by the Repubs, we need to abolish the electoral college.

This kind of thing goes on forever.

[MoreFreedom]

You fail to distinguish between laws that increase our freedom versus laws that reduce it. As a libertarian, I think the Magna Carta and US Constitution are two of the greatest laws in the land, since they're more or less the only two documents that limit the power of the political class, that I'm aware of.

And don't forget the way laws are implemented in a country: some countries and politicians respect the law, others ignore it, often depending upon whether they like the law or not. That's not rule of law, it's rule by humans with all their flaws.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

My simple opinion: anyone in any executive branch agency serves at the pleasure of the sitting president, and should be susceptible to termination at any time for any reason.

[Nobartium]

Anyone remember when the Dodd-Frank board claimed that they weren't subject to the president?

SCOTUS said fuck no, so there is no reason that these IG's are different.

[MoreFreedom]

Perhaps you weren't informed of the history in government schools of why so-called Civil Servants can't be fired by the President. It was done to ensure "stability and efficiency" within the government and avoid complete replacement of an agency or department, which would not doubt cause a lot of problems and commotion. Plus they were given due process requiring a reason to fire them.

The good news is Congress has written the laws such that the Executive Branch bureaucracy essentially writes the laws, because this allows Congress to pass laws that only the political class wants expecting the President to also be an authoritarian in power thanks to the political class that help put them there (e.g., via the nomination process - like how Harris got the nomination, plus so much more chipping away at democratic elections). Now Trump is rewriting the laws per EO (as many presidents have done) and can fire employees who fail to perform the job according to the EO written law.

Also good news, is the fact that the election of Trump, is likely to lead Congress to actually write the laws, which means what they propose and pass or not, they'll get the discredit or credit for it, rather than let the Executive Branch write the law they way they don't want it. In the meantime, they'll avoid passing changes to policy because when they do they usually become more unpopular, and some lose re-election.

[BYODB]

Question: Does the reason the President puts forward need to meet some particular standard, because it seems like the President could just fill in the blank with 'fuck you' and that would be sufficient according to the no information whatsoever put in this article.

[mad.casual]

Local firearm Bill of Sale forms require information redundant to the 4473 form, except for the 'Reason for purchase'. AFAIK, nothing anyone puts down can/does void the purchase, I assume confessing to felonies complicates things. My understanding is that 'Nunya', '2A', 'shall not be infringed', and 'ATF is gay' are popular reasons. Pretty sure the FFLs leave it blank for customers to fill out specifically to that end.

[diver64]

"Because Fuck You, That's Why" is a pretty damn substantive reason Trump could hand Congress.
That whole separation of powers, co-equal branches of government, Chief Executive having exclusive power over his branch of government are just icing on the cake.

[nobody 2]

"That change was motivated, in part, by Trump's decision in 2020 to abruptly remove an inspector general charged with oversight of pandemic-era stimulus spending."

In other words, the law was changed because Trump fired somebody who had demonstrated either incompetence or corruption. That sounds about right for Congress.

[Your Therapist]

All of these “watchdog” government bureaucrats from under Biden even if put in their positions while under Trump’s previous administration SHOULD BE CANNED. They did a shitty job.

[Rick James]

n the United States, Office of Inspector General is a generic term for the oversight division of a federal or state agency aimed at preventing inefficient or unlawful operations within their parent agency. Such offices are attached to many federal executive departments, independent federal agencies, as well as state and local governments

Heckuva job there. No wonder they passed a law in 2022 to make it impossible to fire them.

[Eeyore]

I think you actually get promoted to one of these jobs by getting caught taking bribes.

[Eeyore]

Substantive rationale - "A form of rationality that considers the value of an action"

Hey Congress. The value I got out of hearing a dozen useless cunts cry is almost unmeasurable.

[diver64]

A couple dozen golden mugs with T on them containing leftist tears is substantive.

[shadydave]

A law that goes all the way back to 2022? How could Trump break such long established norms?

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

2 1/2 years. Practically the founding fathers.

[TJJ2000]

That's cute.

Something, something about preemptive pardoning officials before leaving office.

It appears the 'corruption' flag is being waved by the very party that has to pardon their 'corruption' before leaving office.

So Trump needs to give a 30-day notice to congress.
Something he should do; but hardly a 'flag' of political corruption.

[CountmontyC]

Trump should fire them and then pardon himself for breaking this ( unconstitutional) law

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

“Article II grants to the President the executive power of the Government, i. e. , the general administrative control of those executing the laws, including the power of appointment and removal of executive officers—a conclusion confirmed by his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; that Article II excludes the exercise of legislative power by Congress to provide for appointments and removals, except only as granted therein to Congress in the matter of inferior offices; that Congress is only given power to provide for appointments and removals of inferior officers after it has vested, and on condition that it does vest, their appointment in other authority than the President with the Senate’s consent; that the provisions of the second section of Article II, which blend action by the legislative branch, or by part of it, in the work of the executive, are limitations to be strictly construed and not to be extended by implication; that the President’s power of removal is further established as an incident to his specifically enumerated function of appointment by and with the advice of the Senate, but that such incident does not by implication extend to removals the Senate’s power of checking appointments; and finally that to hold otherwise would make it impossible for the President, in case of political or other differences with the Senate or Congress, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”576

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/28-the-removal-power.html

After reasons caterwauling about the birthright citizenship issue, you'd think they would be outraged over Congress violating a long held precedent over not having say in political appointee removals.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Hey, MollyGodiva! Right here! This is where you need to rebut Jesse, with facts. Not scattered assertions which say nothing except "You're a fascist".

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

But that's (D)ifferent!

[diver64]

STOP THAT! Stop invoking The Constitution, what are you? A radical fascist!
I would quibble only on one thing. It is not a "long established precedent". It's The basic framework of our Government so I wouldn't call it that.

[Spiritus Mundi]

If all these watchdogs are doing such a great job, how come none of them noticed Biden was a vegatable for 4 years?

[A Thinking Mind]

They are big fans of vegetables.

[MasterThief]

Cucumbers mostly?

[CountmontyC]

Inspector generals are useless bureaucrats which is why I advocate for a Federal Department of Internal Affairs with the same powers as the DOJ to investigate and prosecute malfeasance by federal agencies and agents. I want federal agencies and agents to fear the consequences of illegal behavior on their part.

[sarcasmic]

How effective are internal affairs departments?

[CountmontyC]

It depends on the department. Some are better than others.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You are awesomely naive if you think that department wouldn't just be a new path to corruption. Imagine thinking any bureaucrat wants to eliminate the problem that sustains his job!

The only way to control government is to allow citizen prosecutions for corruption, lies, and other malfeasance, judged only by 12 random jurors, without appeal, without government judges, without lawyers quibbling over fine points of 100 year old cases. Let the accuser present his evidence. Let the accused present his evidence. Then the 12 jurors decide, and that bureaucrat can't be charged again for another year.

[CountmontyC]

In part I am relying on the fact that every agency wants to grow and protect it's existence and for a FDIA that would mean taking down corrupt federal officials.

Btw some things I would do to keep it from becoming part of the swamp.
1) Base it outside of Washington DC by at least 200 miles.
2) Limited terms for it's agents ( 5-7 years).
3) Banning agents and other officials from being employed by any other federal agency for at least five years from the end of their employment at the FDIA.
4) Recruit agents from state and local law enforcement ( to which they would return upon the end of their term).
5) A civilian oversight committee to watch the FDIA.
6) No unions for anyone at the FDIA.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

A lot of complications just to keep it part of the government.

Much simpler to allow civilians to do the enforcing.

Why do you want to work so hard to make a half-assed government department work when a much simpler scheme would work better using civilians?

[CountmontyC]

So explain the process by which these civilians would investigate and prosecute malfeasance by federal agencies and agents. Do a bunch just get together and hold a trial? What are the limits? If they convict what happens? And after the last four years of lawfare I really would not trust a process that ignores due process.

[SIV]

I see Eric Boehm got his Pussy Hat out of the mothballs.

[sarcasmic]

Democrats did it first. That makes it ok.

[MollyGodiva]

When?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

2009

[VULGAR MADMAN]

He’s got like one idea.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"Democrats did it first. That makes it ok."

*Scratches chin* And yet Sarcasmic didn't have a problem with it before. This must be more of Sarc's famous "principles".

[DesigNate]

I know you think you’re being sarcastic here, but yes. It’s 100% in the presidents purview to fire executive bureaucrats and it was fine when Obama did it.

In fact, I’d wager that there weren’t any articles decrying him doing it.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

I’ll bet Sarc didn’t bitch about that either.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

"I’d wager that there weren’t any articles decrying him doing it."

Certainly not in Reason. But they definitely don't lean one direction.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

And the daily Sarcasmic strawman pops up again, folks!

[Michael Ejercito]

Under which branch of government do IGs fall?

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

The "Bohm-invented" 4th branch.

[Quicktown Brix]

I forgot how exhausting the President Trump news cycle is.

[sarcasmic]

Attention-Whore in Chief.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

That’s you

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

But if you end up inside him, it will cost you a sixer. He has his pride.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Self awareness isn't a Sarcasmic superpower.

[InsaneTrollLogic (On The List!)]

Do you even have any self-awareness whatsoever? I'm guessing the answer is "no".

[diver64]

At least we know we have a President unlike the last 4 years.

[MollyGodiva]

Let's step back and look at the MAGA comments here. Their main "arguments" are:
If leftists don't like it then I am for it.
Purge the government of anyone who has different politics.
Anything Trump does I am good with
The law does not apply to Trump.

Guys this is fascism, like for real, no exaggeration.
https://thevitalcenter.com/fall-2024/is-trump-a-fascist

Fascism is not good for anyone. The shit will eventually hit you.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"...Guys this is fascism, like for real, no exaggeration..."

Asshole, the chief executive firing an employee of the executive branch of the government is "management", not "fascism".
Go fuck yourself.

[MollyGodiva]

The blatant disregard for federal law is the fascist part.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Blatant exercise of the powers granted him as the chief of the Executive Branch is the "management" part. As a steaming pile of TDS-addled shit, that would be a fact you're prefer to ignore.

[soldiermedic76]

You don't have a fucking clue what a fascist is do you? Or what they actually did, do you? Because you're a fucking moron who can't read and can't entertain any thoughts that run contrary to your hyper partisan take.

[DesigNate]

She does. She’s the fascist.

It’s ALWAYS projection with leftist.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Nope. The Executive can fire appointees at will. How do you not know that?

[diver64]

Acting within specific Constitutional Powers over the Executive Branch is certainly not no matter what power grab Congress tries. If they don't like it, SCOTUS is down the hall to the left but you know what? I betcha that after all the screaming, posturing and 49 interviews Chuckie Schumer gives to his sycophants in the former msm that doesn't happen because they know they got nothing.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Let's step back and look at the comments here. Only one posted a link regarding firing of political appointees.

[soldiermedic76]

No, the main argument is that the power to dismiss executive branch appointed positions resides solely with the president and cannot be abridged by Congress, ergo, the law is unconstitutional you fucking moron.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The law in question does not take away the president's power to fire IGs. The law does not demand Congressional permission before the president fires an IG. The law instead requires 30 days' notice. So let's put it in perspective a little bit.

[DesigNate]

That’s still abridging the Presidents power…

[CountmontyC]

So what is to stop them from extending that notice to 60 days? 90 days? 4 years?

[diver64]

You pretty much have this correct. Congress passed a law that does nothing to actually impede the President's authority over the Executive branch. It's a law that says "hey Mr. President, if you fire someone can you give us 30 days notice and a reason"? Personally, I'd balk at even that and dare them to head over to SCOTUS. The point I think is a foot in the door for Congress to try and start wielding influence over Executive action and Trumps team seems to understand this. His team told him to go ahead and fire them then tell Congress to pound sand.
Congress has delegated all it's powers to various government agencies but want's to control a different branch. How about they do their damn jobs first?

[MollyGodiva]

The Constitution says nothing about firing civil servants, nor does it limit Congress. However, a very strong leader without accountability is part of fascism.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

The Constitution gives the head of the Executive Branch broad powers to hire and fire employees working in that Branch and gives no power to Congress to interfere.
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Literally a link in this very comment section calls you a fucking idiot.

[Michael Ejercito]

And to whom are these civil servants accountable to?

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Congress can’t regulate the structure or internal policies of the executive branch. And the IG is a creation of the executive branch.

You democrats are ignorant morons.

[Michael Ejercito]

They have some power to do so. See, for example, the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

What they can not do is require the President to hire a particular person, nor restrain the President from firing any Article II employee (with perhaps one exception). All they can do, if such a particular exercise of this presidential discretion is unethical, is political retaliation.

[soldiermedic76]

So the farmers of the Constitution are fascists, since article II of the Constitution clearly states the power to appoint and dismiss appointees to the executive branch lies solely with the President and Congress has no say other than the advise and consent role of the Senate (the house none). So you're saying the Constitution, which predated fascism by a century and a half, is fascist because it gives Trump powers you dislike, the same powers every president has had since Washington? Fucking idiot.

[soldiermedic76]

Oh and BTW, anyone who thinks fascists decreased the number of bureaucrats, instead of increAsing them and giving them even more power is a fucking historical moron. In the first three years of Hitlers rule the size of the already rather large German bureaucracy increased 300%.

[soldiermedic76]

Also, tyrants and dictators tend not to fire incompetent people they tend to promote them or at least give them multiple chances. For example Goering, Talleyrand, Fouche, Ney, Murat, any of the male Bonaparte siblings. Etc.

[Set Us Up The Chipper]

Additionally, NGO's are inherently fascist.

[MollyGodiva]

Except the Constitution does not say that, nor even imply it.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Except the Constitution does exactly that.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Again. You look extra retarded shrike given a link already posted above.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Why don't you add a comment reply to Jesse's link above? Why not actually rebut what he wrote?

Because you have no facts on your side.

See, I'm as ignorant on this subject as you and most people. All I can really go on is who provides what kind of support. Jesse provided a justia link. You provide rants. Guess which one looks more substantive...

[soldiermedic76]

Jesse already posted, word for word the pertinent part of article II of the fucking constitution above moron. Can't you fucking read idiot?

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Can’t ever let it forget this bit of idiocy. Ever.

[diver64]

Except JesseAz printed the part of the Constitution in the above comments that actually is crystal clear on this or can you not read?
I know, Reason has you on the payroll as a troll to get people in the comments to keep on the site.

[mad.casual]

So the farmers of the Constitution are fascists,

See above. "DId you see the hat Melania wore to the inauguration? OMG! It was so unconstitutional!" - Eric Boehm

[Gaear Grimsrud]

The main "arguments" are that the constitution grants the president sole authority over executive branch appointees. Maybe you read the comments before making comments about the comments.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"Guys this is fascism, like for real, no exaggeration."

The lack of self-awareness from you and your link is amazing.

Trump never removed his opponent from a ballot. You did.
Trump never used the Government against his opponent. You did.
Trump never used lawfare against his opponent and tried to bankrupt and imprison them. You did.
Trump never illegally censored millions of American's speech. You did.
Trump didn't say that casting aspersions on the integrity of his Justice Department was an attack on American democracy. You did.
Trump didn't use the FBI to illegally spy on his political opponent and sympathetic media. You did.

I could go on and on.

You're not the good guys, MollyGodiva. What you've been doing is still fascism even if you call yourselves "anti-fascist". Trump was a victim of fascism, not the perpetrator.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

And Molly Godiva is a steaming pile of TDS-addled lefty shit who would make the world a better place by fucking off and dying.
It is the world's misfortune that the ignoramus Molly Godiva is entirely too stupid to understand that.

[DesigNate]

Congratulations Molly, you’ve finally surpassed shrike as the dumbest motherfucker to post here.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Let's go waaaaaay back, through the mists of time, to the ancient year of 2009, when another president decided to fire an Inspector General.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna31325894

President Barack Obama says he has lost confidence in the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs and has told Congress he is removing him from the position.

Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.

Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled the investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit group that received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service, which runs the AmeriCorps program.

So, briefly:
- Mayor Kevin Johnson (D) of Sacramento, big Obama supporter, wasted AmeriCorps funds
- The AmeriCorps IG discovered this, issued a report about it
- Obama fired the IG

So, we finally see that Team Red has caught up to Obama's "Chicago Style Politics" from 16 years ago. Fire the IGs, because they only thing they wind up doing, in a political sense, is when they issue a report, they embarrass the guy in charge. Their only political purpose is to generate a scandal.

Of course Obama only fired that one, because that one said mean things about his buddy in Sacramento. Trump is being way more proactive about it, firing them all since it is only a matter of time before they will write some report that says mean things about him or his admin.

But, the only way we knew about Mayor Johnson's malfeasance was the IG report. Now, Trump will be able to get away with all sorts of things without meddling IGs writing reports.

[MollyGodiva]

You are misrepresenting what happened. That IG was let go for cause. That is very different than canning a dozen IGs because you want to install loyalists.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

You are not the head of the Executive Branch and no member of Congress is either. If the head of the Executive Branch says "you're fired", you're fired.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Walpin was fired because he embarrassed Obama.

[DesigNate]

A search of Reason’s archive found exactly 1 instance of Walpin, in a Balko Morning Links, and strangely, nobody in the comments made a big deal over it.

Though I will grant that was a hella slow day since there weren’t any articles only 66 comments. But based on the other comments in this thread, I don’t get the sense that anyone cares if the President fires someone executive department bureaucrats.

[Social Justice is neither]

So to you, a President actively using this power to cover corruption by his cronies is the same as the guy 4 years out of office using his power to remove ineffectual or incompetent employees of his? You are a retarded leftist if that seems convincing to you.

[soldiermedic76]

Did Boehm stop for a second and read article II of the Constitution? Did he think maybe Trump or his advisors did this because the 2022 law is blatantly unconditional and needs to be challenged?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The law does not take away the president's power to fire IGs. Instead it requires the president to give Congress 30 days' notice. That is different than the CPFB case, which tried to claim that the president didn't have any power to fire the CPFB director (that is unconstitutional). This is less clear that it is a violation of separation of powers. After all there are lots of occasions when Congress requires the President (or some executive branch person) to give Congress notice on a certain timetable. Are all of those demands unconstitutional too?

[Nobartium]

Most of them would be.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Do you have an example of a case where SCOTUS said that Congress requiring the President to give it notice violated separation of powers?

[Nobartium]

No need, consult article 1 sec 8, then compare any notice against which power the presidency would be taking.

The War Powers Act has one it can point to.

The IG's don't have one.

[Medulla Oblongata]

In 2020’s Seila Law v. CFPB did the Supreme Court expand the president’s power to fire executive officials who are protected from removal by law. In Seila Law, the court struck down a statute that protected the CFPB director from termination. A year later, in Collins v. Yellen, the court extended its reasoning to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack.

[Edit: expect this to be met with "give it notice" was not SPECIFICALLY addressed in either case. I know this. But these two cases indicate SCOTUS trend in these laws restricting removal power as being overturned; this particular law may or may not be overturned by SCOTUS, but the track record is there.]

[diver64]

If they explicitly strike at the President's Constitutional authority over the Executive Branch then, yes. The President can let Congress know what he is doing ahead of time in the Executive Branch but they can not pass a law obligating him to that will hold up in court. They can scream and do as many talk shows as they want, changes nothing.
Not referencing you in this but it's funny that the same people who had nothing to say when Biden was getting repeatedly slapped down in court for un Constitutional power grabs and decrees are suddenly interested when Trump exercises explicit Constitutional powers over his own branch.

[MollyGodiva]

Article II does not say what you MAGAs claim it does.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

It says exactly what TDS-addled steaming piles of shit don't like.

[MollyGodiva]

If you are so sure, then quote the passage in question.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

If you are so sure, then rebut Jesse's justia link above instead of just asserting the same non-factual words over and over.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

No, you tell us where, in Article II, it says the POTUS shall require approval of Congress to fire an Executive Branch employee.
Absent that, A-II allows POTUS to hire and fire at his/her discretion.
If you are so sure otherwise, please quote the relevant passage. It ain't there; other than ambassadors, the POTUS gas a free hand (except to TDS-addled slimy piles of shit, if the POTUS is Trump).

[soldiermedic76]

Already done above moron. Yells for citations already provided. The perfect example of someone to stupid to realize they are wrong.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Pretty sure this isn't a turd-sock; MG has been a fucking lefty ignoramus since s/he showed up on day one. But s/he shows turd-level stupidity and dishonesty.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Molly will never give up the con,

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

BTW, you are welcome to look here and find your magic 'control by Congress'
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"A law passed in 2022 requires the president to give Congress a "substantive rationale" for removing inspectors general. Trump has not done that."

"I don't like them" is about as substantive as a POTUS needs to fire an executive branch employee.

[MollyGodiva]

Not if the law says otherwise.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

A law which presumes for Congress Executive Branch power which is not theirs.
Fuck off and die.

[Michael Ejercito]

So he could give it to them after the fact.

[diver64]

You just keep saying the same thing over and over as if repeating the claim Congress has power over a different branch of government will just make it so. They can pass a law that requires SCOTUS to wear pink Crocs and party hats on the Bench. So? If it's outside their powers it's outside their powers. You can just stop, now.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh, and let's not forget that it wasn't all that long ago when Team Red was praising one particular IG for exposing the FBI and the FISA court for being a bunch of incompetent dolts with respect to the Trump-Russia investigation.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

What is your goddamn point?

[Nobartium]

And?

This doesn't change the power of firing.

[diver64]

What? No idea what that non sequitur has to do with the subject at hand.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Lol. This entire thread demonstrates leftists don't care what the law or constitution says, they just want it to be what they wish it to be.

Liberals really need to take a civics class.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Well, maybe 'liberals', but TDS-addled steaming piles of shit need to fuck off and die.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

I got into this same dumb argument with the shit eating quirrel almost 8 years ago after comey was fired.

They are unable to actually learn.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

That’s why they’re democrats. Anyone with sense would have jumped ship by now.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"...So far, the second Trump administration seems less interested in draining the swamp than in pushing aside people who might sound the alarm about corruption, illegal actions, and other abuses of executive power..."

And those people were oh, so effective at keeping the Biden administration from hiding evidence, making sure various outlets were not strong-armed to censor opposing view, and flat-out lying to the US public, right?
Fuck you with a barb-wire-wrapped broomstick, Bohm.

[DRM]

That Congress in 2022 passed a blatantly unconstitutional revival of the Tenure of Office Act is the scandal here, not that the President ignored the usurpation.

If Cardell K. Richardson Sr. goes into the office Monday morning, he should be arrested and jailed before lunch.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

This. They've attempted and been struck down every damn time too.

[Michael Resanovic]

The Tenure of Office Act was constitutional.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Nope. Case closed.

[diver64]

Not according to SCOTUS

[Michael Ejercito]

No need.

As trump fired him, he no longer has legal authority to exercise his former duties.

People are now free to tell him to fuck off.

[DRM]

Maybe there's in some sense "no need", but I'm fairly certain it's illegal for private U.S. citizens to walk into the Harry S Truman Federal Building and occupy an office under the false claim that they work there.

So, I'm still in favor of arrest and jail, assuming that security doesn't stop him from getting past the visitor's entrance. I figure that a judge will probably release him soon afterward, but the point should still be made. I'd be arrested if I went in; he has no more right to be there than I do.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

Or shot by the Capitol police for insurrection.

[diver64]

Myers v United States referenced that act and indicated it had been invalid. It's odd someone would bring up a law from over 100 years ago that was repealed by Congress after 20 years.

[DRM]

What in hell is remotely "odd" about anyone comparing a current law to a defunct one in order to point out that current law is as unconstitutional as the defunct one?

(Improve your reading comprehension, buddy. Everybody else commenting successfully understood what I wrote, even the idiot who argued in response that the Tenure of Office Act was somehow constitutional.)

[DRM]

So far, the second Trump administration seems less interested in draining the swamp than in pushing aside people who might sound the alarm about corruption, illegal actions, and other abuses of executive power.

Riiiight, the most efficient way to "drain the swamp" is to let the swamp creatures hold the offices in charge of monitoring "corruption, illegal actions, and other abuses of executive power".

[Variant]

That law must be unconstitutional then. Are inspectors general a new fourth branch of government? They're either beholden to the executive or this structure isn't legal.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Biden invented a "4th branch", and TDS-addled shit-piles like Bohm and MG somehow find it valid.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Off topic: Rain in CA:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/san-francisco/94103/weather-radar/347629
Northern CA is getting some, not so much SoCal, which suffers from occasional drought and nearly constant incompetent governance. The folks there can do some about one of those which will do much to relieve the issues caused by the other.

[F.D. Wolf]

Yes, like President Johnson violated federal law when he tried to fire War Secretary Edwin Stanton and got impeached for it.

The federal law Trump is violating is most probably unconstitutional. There have been discussions for quite a while suggesting that Trump will set up a test case to challenge Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), to reassert the President's role as the sole head of the executive branch, to prevent executive officials from re-branding themselves mere "civil servants" so they can sabotage and undermine his administration.

[MWAocdoc]

"pushing aside people who might sound the alarm about corruption, illegal actions, and other abuses of executive power."

The question here is, "But do they?" - a question not answered anywhere in this article. It's one thing to report a new event: "President fires Inspectors General." It's quite a different thing to report the event and then go on to refer to similar events in the past, state that those - and the current one - are likely "illegal" speculating that the motive is evil; and then failing to give investigative context to support the "up-to-no-good" insinuation. I read the links to previous Trump firings of Inspector Generals without finding any supporting evidence that he was unjustified in any of these actions. Failure as an investigative journalist here.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

AGREED

Reason is getting a little National Enquirer-ish

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

Just for once word things the way I tell my students

Trump Fires Inspectors General, and there is a chance it does not violate Federal Law

[n00bdragon]

I'm sure the attorney general will get right down to investigating any possible crimes committed.

[Incunabulum]

>This mass dismissal comes on the heels of Trump's move earlier this week to dismiss several members from a White House board that provides oversight on privacy and civil liberties issues, including the federal government's warrantless spying programs.

As Reason itself noted - the program only provided oversight in name, not in substance. In the first 10 years of its existence it provided one 'report' telling everyone that yeah, Snowden isn't lying. Then did nothing about it or anything else for the next 10 years.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Reason is not at all happy that some of their cocktail-party compatriots are going to have to FIND A REAL JOB!

[Truthteller1]

What "substantive rationale" do you need Eric? These are deep state regime shills. JFC.

He didn't "attempt" to fire them, they are fired.

[I, Woodchipper]

No one cares about this court intrigue except the court hangers-on.

[Incunabulum]

What, Boehm, if the law is itself unconstitutional?

How would that be challenged short of trying to violate it? You can't really just have a court review a law because you think it might be unconstitutional. How many laws - even federal ones - have been overturned because they were unconstitutional?

Why is there a presumption that the legislative knows what they're doing when it comes to making law when its been evident for the entirety of my life that they don't?

[Livemike]

"So far, the second Trump administration seems less interested in draining the swamp than in pushing aside people who might sound the alarm about corruption, illegal actions, and other abuses of executive power."
And yet they did not sound the alarm about the massive corruption, illegal actions and other abuses of power aimed at preventing Trump from being President.

[I, Woodchipper]

All my doubts about Trump are being erased, and you can tell he's doing good stuff by gauging the reactions of the people who are furious about it.

[XM]

The dutiful watchdogs didn't find anything "unlawful of inefficient" about Joe Biden admin? You know, FEMA did instruct its workers to avoid houses with Trump signs. Biden withheld aid to Israel approved by congress. Oh, and the whole student loan forgiveness and ratifying amendments via social media thing. Sloped roof and stuff, you know.

Is this is a joke? All these people should be fired on the spot, I blame Trump for not simply providing the rationale. It's wasteful for unelected bureaucrats to manage the environment or the economy, but it's good for them to safeguard ethics?

Nothing tangibly related to Biden must be allowed to stay. Nothing.

[Fats of Fury]

Problem is getting past SCOTUS. It looks like Roberts is going to be a solid no on anything Trump does joining the 3 solid progs.
So it's always down to the one maverick who can go either way.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Sadly, congress has abdicated its duties regarding very important issues, declaring war for one.
But claiming the head of the Executive Branch can't fire EB employees has congress (and Bohm's) pants in a twist.
Do we see a certain bias here? I do.

[diver64]

It would seem President Trump has thrown down the gauntlet and is daring Congress to take it to SCOTUS. I doubt that will happen as Congress really doesn't want firm SCOTUS guardrails on their perceived powers. The Dems will shrike and wail to the usual suspects and intone with deep gravitas about a lawless fascist in the WH destroying OUR DEMOCRACY, Pelosi might even crawl out of a bottle long enough to slur something about sea lions off California, then they will do absolutely nothing.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

Not a Trump voter, but every president should be allowed to have their people. While I believe in limiting the power of the executive branch, I also dislike one branch interfering with another branch.

[Medulla Oblongata]

From Trump 1.0, the media hyperventilated..." With no warning or fanfare, the Trump administration on Friday fired 46 federal prosecutors who had served in the Justice Department under President Barack Obama."

Sometimes, they did grant this this was not unusual...

"This isn't the first time a new president has dramatically fired federal prosecutors left over from a previous administration. President Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys on the same day in March 1993.

And Biden rans some similar purges: "President Biden is firing all military academy board members appointed by former President Donald Trump — regardless of their qualifications — in a purge drawing stiff pushback because their terms were supposed to last three years.

Six presidential appointees on each academy board — 18 people in total — were told to resign by 6 p.m. Wednesday or be fired.

“I think this complete purge shows that the administration is hellbent on the woke mob controlling or having input into military education. Otherwise, why do it?” said one of the board members, who pointed out that Trump didn’t perform a similar purge.

“This is why this is such a big deal: historically it has never been done. ‘Unprecedented’ is a word you could use here,” the board member said.

Slate.com lauded it!

How Conservative Lawyers Accidentally Helped Biden De-Trumpify the Government

The Supreme Court left Biden with two options: unilateral disarmament or hardball politics. He chose the latter.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/joe-biden-andrew-saul-trump-unitary-executive.html

[Medulla Oblongata]

Sarc's brilliant wit: "It's okay because Democrats did it first."

[StevenF]

Requiring the President to justify removing Executive Branch officials to the Legislative branch is a DIRECT violation of separation of powers. If the law requires what every source I have seen claims, the law is unconstitutional.