Was It Legal for Trump to Fire Seventeen Inspectors General Without Notice?

Jack Goldsmith offers his analysis.

At the tail end of last week, President Trump fired seventeen inspectors general across a number of agencies (including some IGs that he himself had appointed during his first term). Of note, Trump did not provide Congress with the thirty-days notice that is required by federal law.

Some, such as the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, believe this act was "blatantly illegal." Others, such as Harvard Law's Jack Goldsmith, are not so sure. Goldsmith offered a nuanced analysis for the Lawfare Blog that begins:

On Friday night, President Trump removed at least 17 inspectors general, the executive branch watchdogs who conduct audits and investigations of executive branch actions. The removals are probably lawful even though Trump defied a 2022 law that required congressional notice of the terminations, which Trump did not give. Trump probably acted lawfully, I think, because the notice requirement is probably unconstitutional.

The real bite in the 2022 law, however, comes in the limitations it places on Trump's power to replace the terminated IGs—limitations that I believe are constitutional. This aspect of the law will make it hard, but not impossible, for Trump to put loyalists atop the dozens of vacant IG offices around the executive branch. The ultimate fate of IG independence during Trump 2.0, however, depends less on legal protections than on whether Congress, which traditionally protects IGs, stands up for them now. Don't hold your breath.

That sounds about right to me. Here, as in many areas, the real question is whether Congress will defend its own prerogatives and power as a coordinate branch--and there is ample reason to doubt whether (m)any congressional Republicans have such fortitude.

In any event, Goldsmith's entire analysis is worth a read for those interested in the subject.