May 12, 2020
Removal of Inspectors General: Rules, Practice, and
Considerations for Congress
Introduction
The 30-day notice requirement was established under the
In 1978, Congress passed the Inspector General Act (IG
Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-409).
Act; P.L. 95-452) with the intent to improve oversight
Previously, the President (or head of a DFE) was required
within certain executive branch agencies. During the floor
to “communicate the reasons for any such removal to both
debate on the legislation, Senator Thomas Eagleton
Houses of Congress” but not to provide advance notice.
described independence as the “most important”
characteristic of the inspectors general (Congressional
Acting inspectors general, some of whom have served in
Record, vol. 124, part 29, October 22, 1978, p. 30952).
this capacity for years at a time, do not enjoy the same
While this independence has been considered essential, it is
removal protections as confirmed inspectors general. The
also weighed against the fact that inspectors general are
status of acting inspectors general is dictated by the Federal
situated within the agencies and that their dual mission is to
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. §§3345-3349c;
report to both their home agencies and Congress, which
see CRS Report R44997, The Vacancies Act: A Legal
calls for consideration of the balance between independence
Overview, by Valerie C. Brannon).
from and general supervision by agencies.
Removal Practice
The removal procedures for inspectors general, which fall
CRS has identified three instances of inspector general
between removal without limitations and removal only for
removals by Presidents. This section discusses those actions
cause, have been considered an integral element of that
and examples of related congressional practice.
independence since 1978. Nonetheless, there have been
some instances in which Presidents have removed
President Reagan’s Removal of All Inspectors
inspectors general, and those actions have raised concerns
General
in Congress. In addition, Congress has considered and
One of President Reagan’s first official acts upon his
enacted additional removal requirements since 1978.
inauguration on January 20, 1981, was to remove all 15
confirmed and acting inspectors general then working
This In Focus provides an overview of the current removal
across the executive branch. This action appears to have
procedure for inspectors general, identifies some notable
caused bipartisan concern in Congress. On February 3,
removals, and discusses potential issues for Congress.
1981, an article in the New York Times quoted
Representatives L. H. Fountain and Frank Horton, the
Removal Procedure
chairperson and ranking member of the House Committee
The removal procedure for presidentially appointed
on Government Operations, respectively, as saying that the
inspectors general is found in Section 3(b) of the IG Act (5
move had the potential to politicize, and thereby undermine,
U.S.C. Appendix, as amended). The section reads:
the position of inspector general (Robert Pear, “Ouster of
All Inspectors General by Reagan Called Political Move,”
An Inspector General may be removed from office
New York Times, February 3, 1981, p. B14).
by the President. If an Inspector General is removed
from office or is transferred to another position or
The controversy dissipated after President Reagan’s
location within an establishment, the President shall
nominees met with the approval of Congress. By the time
communicate in writing the reasons for any such
the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and
removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not
Human Resources of the House Committee on Government
later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.
Operations held a hearing on April 1, 1981, Chairperson
Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel
Fountain stated that his concerns had been eased by the fact
action otherwise authorized by law, other than
that five of the former inspectors general had been
renominated and the Administration had made other
transfer or removal.
commitments to support the inspector general system.
For the inspectors general of designated federal entities
(DFEs), which are listed in Section 8G(2) of the IG Act, the
Chairperson Fountain, though, also described the impact of
same notice rule applies, except that the head of the DFE,
the removals:
rather than President, appoints and removes the inspector
general. For DFEs headed by boards, committees, or
This action undoubtedly had an adverse effect on
commissions, removal requires the written concurrence of
the operations of the offices whose directors were
two-thirds of the members. The inspector general for the
abruptly removed. Much more serious damage was
U.S. Postal Service may be removed only with agreement
done, however, by the perception that Inspectors
of seven out of nine postal governors and only “for cause.”
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Removal of Inspectors General: Rules, Practice, and Considerations for Congress
General were being viewed in the same light as
legislators objected to the lack of specificity in these notices
political appointees, who expect to be removed with
and requested more detailed explanations (letter from
each change in administrations (U.S. Congress,
Senator Joe Lieberman et al. to Barack Obama, June 19,
House Committee on Government Operations,
2009, and letter from Senator Chuck Grassley et al. to
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and
Donald Trump, April 8, 2020). Senators received more
Human Resources, Oversight of Offices of
information from the Obama Administration (letter from
Inspector General, 97th Cong., 1st sess., April 1,
Norm Eisen, Special Counsel for Ethics and Government
1981, pp. 1-2).
Reform, to Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins,
June 16, 2009). The Trump Administration has not
As this comment illustrates, some considered removal
provided additional details.
protections to be a part of the organizational design of the
offices of inspectors general, ensuring that they could
It may be the case that other inspectors general have
perform their duties free of the perception that they are
resigned under threat of removal. Because it is not possible
partisan political actors.
to identify these cases with certainly from publicly
available materials, they are not discussed here.
Presidential Transitions after Reagan
Nonetheless, because such actions may impact the
During presidential transitions, turnover of political
independence of inspectors general, Congress may monitor
appointees is particularly common. While new Presidents
or investigate reports of such incidents.
have the authority to remove inspectors general at the start
of their Administrations and make their own nominations,
Considerations for Congress
as they do for appointees in many other positions, this has
The removal of inspectors general has remained a topic of
generally not been the practice.
interest for Congress since 1978. Below are some aspects of
the issue that Congress may consider.
Following the actions at the beginning of the Reagan
Administration, some Members of Congress were proactive
Effectiveness of the Current Procedure
in informing new administrations that they expected
As an initial step, it may be useful to consider whether the
inspectors general to remain in their positions
current removal procedure provides for the desired
notwithstanding the change in Administration. For instance,
independence and performance from inspectors general. If
in both 1988 and 1992, Senators John Glenn and William
Congress has concerns about how inspectors general are
Roth, the chair and vice chair of the Senate Committee on
operating, it may also be useful to investigate the cause of
Governmental Affairs, sent letters to Presidents-elect
those issues in order to determine what action by Congress,
George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton emphasizing this
if any, could effectively address those items.
position. Since 1981, inspectors general have remained in
their positions during each presidential transition.
Additional Removal Protections
Congress has previously made changes to the rules for
Recent Presidential Removals of Inspectors
removal of inspectors general, as discussed above. The
General
most frequently discussed of these options has been to
There are at least two instances of a President removing an
allow removal of inspectors general only for reasons that
inspector general since 2000:
fall within a provided definition of good cause.
 On June 11, 2009, President Barack Obama notified
The version of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008
Congress that he was removing the inspector general of
that initially passed the House (H.R. 928, 110th Congress, as
the Corporation for National Community Service,
engrossed by the House), for instance, provided that
Gerald Walpin. President Obama’s stated reason for
inspectors general would serve for fixed seven-year terms
Walpin’s removal was that he no longer had “the fullest
and could be removed only for one of nine specified
confidence” in Walpin (letter from Barack Obama to
reasons (including malfeasance, gross mismanagement, and
Nancy Pelosi, June 11, 2009).
similar justifications). The Senate elected not to adopt this
language based on the results of a comptroller general’s
 On April 3, 2020, President Donald Trump notified
panel that identified concerns regarding for-cause removal
Congress that he was removing the inspector general of
for inspectors general (S.Rept. 110-262 at 4-5).
the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson.
President Trump’s stated reason for Atkinson’s removal
Constitutional Limits on Congress’s Policy Options
was, again, that he no longer had the “fullest
Some policy options that limit the removal of executive
confidence” in Atkinson (letter from Donald Trump, to
branch officials could raise constitutional concerns over
Senators Richard Burr and Mark Warner, April 3, 2020).
separation of powers. Congress may explore those issues
before enacting legislation that could later be challenged in
The removal requirements for the inspector general for the
the courts.
Intelligence Community are under Title 50, Section
3033(c)(4), of the United States Code, which has the same
Ben Wilhelm, Analyst in Government Organization and
requirements as the IG Act.
Management
The legal sufficiency of these notifications has not been
IF11546
adjudicated, but in each case, bipartisan groups of
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Removal of Inspectors General: Rules, Practice, and Considerations for Congress


Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11546 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---