03
Feb
Presidential Orders Draw Lawsuits and Pushback to Preserve Environmental and Government Integrity
(Beyond Pesticides, February 3, 2025) As a result of executive orders on January 20, 2025 and subsequent actions by the Trump administration, the public airwaves have been flooded with presidential proclamations some of which have been subject to legal action and outrage. While the president has issued dozens of executive orders dismantling programs from the environment to foreign aid the impact of the orders on the functioning of an independent government workforce has been raised by those targeted.
On January 29, American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) filed a lawsuit that “asserts that President Trump illegally exceeded his authority in attempting to unilaterally roll back a regulation that protects the rights of civil servants,” according to an AFGE press release. The release continues, “The suit also names the Office of Personnel Management for its role in failing to adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act in its attempts to roll back this same regulation.” According to AFGE National President Everett Kelley, “AFGE is filing suit with our partner union today to protect the integrity of the American people’s government,”
On January 27, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair and Commissioner Charlotte Burrows, having served since 2015 and confirmed through July 2028, along with a colleague, was fired by the president. Her attorney, Lisa Banks, said, “Removing Commissioner Burrows from her position, a full three and half years before the expiration of her term at the EEOC, is just the latest political attack we have seen from President Donald Trump in his coordinated effort to strip-mine the federal government. His efforts will not only significantly weaken the functioning of the EEOC – an independent agency dedicated to equal opportunity for all employees – it will weaken the civil rights protections afforded American workers in workplaces across the country.”
It has long been accepted that independent oversight of government decisions is essential to the integrity and credibility of those decisions. However, President Trump summarily fired at least 17 Inspectors General (IGs) on January 24 across 18 agencies—eliminating, at least for some critical time period, independent oversight of all agency decisions in the new administration. An IG acts independently of the agency head to investigate corruption, fraud, and abuse in the agency and report to Congress. As The Washington Post used to, but no longer displays on its masthead, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” (See Jurist News.)
Although IGs—like department heads—are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the law defines their role to be independent of politics. The Inspector General Act of 1978 states, “There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.” [Emphasis added.] The act also provides that the President may remove an IG, but states, “If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” [Emphasis added.] Because Trump failed to provide the 30-day notice and justification as required by law, some claim that the action is illegal, while others regard the infraction as a technicality.
It has been reported that Phyllis Fong, the U.S. Department of Agriculture IG for 22 years, had to be escorted from her office by security after saying that her firing does not follow comply with the law. Hannibal Ware, chairperson of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, said, “Congress specifically established the authorities and structure of the IGs to safeguard their vital oversight role, by mandating independence under the IG Act. Removals inconsistent with the law are a significant threat to the actual and perceived independence of IGs.”
However, even some who do not seem especially concerned by the President’s dismissal action say that the real impact of the unexpected presidential action will be determined by the replacements of the fired IGs and the time frame in which new appointments are made. The intended effect of the law will be advanced only if the Senate insists on the independence and integrity of the new appointees.
The now former IG at the Interior Department, Mark Greenblatt (appointed by Mr. Trump five years ago), was quoted in The New York Times: “This raises an existential threat with respect to the primary independent oversight function in the federal government. We have preserved the independence of inspectors general by making them not swing with every change in political party.”
The independence of the IGs gives them an important role in ensuring the integrity of agency actions. For example, the IG of the Environmental Protection Agency has in recent years investigated and reported to Congress on: pet collars containing pesticides that continue to be used without assurance that there are no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including pets; deviation from established procedures in registering dicamba; EPA’s failure to assess risks from endocrine disrupting chemicals; inadequacies of management controls to implement the revised Worker Protection Standard; and failure to follow the typical intra-agency review and clearance process during the development and publication of the January 2021 perfluorobutane sulfonic acid, or PFBS, toxicity assessment. It also reported on programmatic issues, including: emergency exemptions; a special local needs program; transparency of cancer risk assessment; state cooperative agreements; and implementing stronger internal controls to decrease the risk of issuing a pesticide registration that does not comply with regulatory requirements.
IGs also play a role in protecting whistleblowers who come forward with information about misconduct within the agency, such as lack of integrity in chemical risk assessment. EPA’s IG reported on retaliation against whistleblowers in 2024.
Tell Congress to ensure the integrity of federal agencies through the appointment of independent Inspectors General.
Letter to Congress
In what promises to be a threat to the integrity of federal agencies, President Trump summarily fired at least 17 Inspectors General (IGs) on January 24 across 18 agencies—eliminating, at least for some critical time period, independent oversight of all agency decisions in the new administration. An IG acts independently of the agency head to investigate corruption, fraud, and abuse in the agency and report to Congress. As The Washington Post used to, but no longer displays on its masthead, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”
Although IGs—like department heads—are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the law defines their role to be independent of politics. The Inspector General Act of 1978 states, “There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.” [Emphasis added.] The act also provides that the President may remove an IG, but states, “If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” [Emphasis added.] Because Trump failed to provide the 30-day notice and justification as required by law, some claim that the action is illegal, while others regard the infraction as a technicality.
However, even some who do not seem especially concerned by the President’s dismissal action say that the real impact of the unexpected presidential action will be determined by the replacements of the fired IGs and the time frame in which new appointments are made. The intended effect of the law will be advanced only if the Senate insists on the independence and integrity of the new appointees.
The now former IG at the Interior Department, Mark Greenblatt (appointed by Mr. Trump five years ago), was quoted in The New York Times: “This raises an existential threat with respect to the primary independent oversight function in the federal government. We have preserved the independence of inspectors general by making them not swing with every change in political party.”
The independence of the IGs gives them an important role in ensuring the integrity of agency actions. For example, the IG of the Environmental Protection Agency has in recent years investigated and reported to Congress on: pet collars containing pesticides that continue to be used without assurance that there are no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including pets; deviation from established procedures in registering dicamba; EPA’s failure to assess risks from endocrine disrupting chemicals; inadequacies of management controls to implement the revised Worker Protection Standard; and failure to follow the typical intra-agency review and clearance process during the development and publication of the January 2021 perfluorobutane sulfonic acid, or PFBS, toxicity assessment. It also reported on programmatic issues, including: emergency exemptions; special local needs programs; transparency of cancer risk assessment; state cooperative agreements; and implementing stronger internal controls to decrease the risk of issuing a pesticide registration that does not comply with regulatory requirements.
IGs also play a role in protecting whistleblowers who come forward with information about misconduct within the agency, such as lack of integrity in chemical risk assessment. EPA’s IG reported on retaliation against whistleblowers in 2024.
Please request a U.S. Government Accountability Office report on the importance of IGs and their independence.
Thank you.
