Congress Should Reject Newest Attempt To Defang Watchdogs

Congress is at it again.

It’s no secret that independent oversight within the federal government is under attack.

Across the government, guardrails have come down, and watchdogs have come under fire. Inspectors general (IGs), who work within federal agencies to investigate and expose waste, fraud, and abuse, have been a particular target. Created by Congress in the wake of Watergate, offices of inspectors general report to both the heads of their departments and also to Congress. This dual reporting requirement allows IGs to give Congress the unfettered and candid information it needs to conduct effective oversight.

At the beginning of the second Trump administration, the president removed, en masse, over a dozen inspectors general, in violation of the law and with no substantive justification. He then fired others, including the IG for USAID, days after their offices published reports that contained reporting on the negative effects of his actions. He has cut the budgets for many IGs, and his most recent budgets propose even more cuts. Finally, he has appointed IGs whose backgrounds suggest they lack the independence necessary to do their jobs effectively.

And because independence is both a matter of perception and reality, even the work of independent and courageous IGs or acting IGs has been sullied by these actions. The net effect of this attack has been to send a clear message to those left in the IG community: Keep your head down, or it is going to get chopped off.

So, what is the latest? Before its August recess, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform advanced legislation that would abolish the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) — the independent body that coordinates the federal inspector general system — and transfer many of its core responsibilities to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in the Executive Office of the President. This would substantially weaken the independence of inspectors general and undermine their critical work.

CIGIE sounds like one of those obscure institutions in the corner of the government that we perhaps could do without, but hobbling this important organization is a far bigger deal than it appears on the surface. CIGIE is made up of all 73 IGs, and it provides a forum to share concerns and best practices. It is also the keeper of the flame for IG standards — things like independence, objectivity, and effectiveness — and it conducts reviews of IG offices to ensure that they maintain those standards. CIGIE also investigates IGs themselves when they are accused of misconduct. In effect, the organization serves as the watchdog of the watchdogs.

CIGIE is also a critical component for IG independence. IG independence is obviously the sine qua non of the job, but maintaining that independence requires that IGs have access to an organization of like-minded peers. This is certainly true today, but it’s nothing new. When I was inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security during the second Obama term and part of the first Trump term, CIGIE was instrumental in advising Congress on IG issues. It provided a unified voice for the IG community. This included situations in which our independence and access to information was stymied. For example, in 2015, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion that cut back on the authority of the IGs to get information from their agencies to conduct audits.

CIGIE gathered and discussed the situation and its impact on oversight. CIGIE sponsored a letter signed by more than 60 inspectors general, which notified Congress of the issue. I and a number of other IGs advocated before Congress and the public at large for legislation that would help watchdogs get the information they need to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in government agencies. This effort was organized and effectuated by CIGIE. Only CIGIE could have marshaled the resources and conducted the coordination necessary to get this done. Notably, because we were opposing a current administration policy, none of what we wrote or said was vetted or cleared by anyone in the Obama administration.

This coordinated effort ultimately resulted in Congress passing the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, to clarify and reinstate the authority of IGs to receive information. The passage of the law was a truly bipartisan effort. Members of both parties understood that an independent IG system was in everyone’s best interest.

Transferring CIGIE’s functions to OMB will eliminate that independence, and it will stifle IGs’ ability to keep Congress “fully and currently informed” as required by law. If reporting and communication from IGs is subject to the supervision of OMB, Congress will lose access to the information it needs and will be hampered in its ability to conduct oversight. This, in my view, is a step backward — not only for the inspector general community, but for the interests of effective congressional oversight.

The Inspector General Act empowers Congress in its constitutional oversight of the executive branch, so it is puzzling, to say the least, that Congress would wish to further weaken its powers by destroying one of its key resources for oversight.

The current majority must understand that their position is not permanent; one day they, too, will be relying on an independent and effective IG community to conduct meaningful internal oversight.

Congress has already ceded too much power to the executive branch. It must vote against this bill.