Updated May 26, 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, may 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 in positions subject to
situated within the agencies and that their dual mission is to
Senate confirmation is dictated by the Federal Vacancies
report to both their home agencies and Congress, which
Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. §§3345-3349c; see CRS
calls for consideration of the balance between independence
Report R44997, The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview, by
from and general supervision by agencies.
Valerie C. Brannon).
The removal procedures for inspectors general, which fall
For a more detailed analysis of the development and
between removal without limitations and removal only for
implementation of this legal framework, see CRS Legal
cause, have been considered an integral element of that
Sidebar LSB10476, Presidential Removal of IGs Under the
independence since 1978. Nonetheless, there have been
Inspector General Act, by Todd Garvey.
some instances in which Presidents have removed
inspectors general, and those actions have raised concerns
Removal Practice
in Congress. In addition, Congress has considered and
This section discusses presidential removals of inspectors
enacted additional removal requirements since 1978.
general and examples of related congressional practice.
This In Focus provides an overview of the current removal
President Reagan’s Removal of All Inspectors
procedure for inspectors general, identifies some notable
General
removals, and discusses potential issues for Congress.
One of President Reagan’s first official acts upon his
inauguration on January 20, 1981, was to remove all 15
Removal Procedure
confirmed and acting inspectors general then working
The removal procedure for presidentially appointed
across the executive branch. This action appears to have
inspectors general is found in Section 3(b) of the IG Act (5
caused bipartisan concern in Congress. On February 3,
U.S.C. Appendix, as amended). The section reads:
1981, an article in the New York Times quoted
Representatives L. H. Fountain and Frank Horton, the
An Inspector General may be removed from office
chairperson and ranking member of the House Committee
by the President. If an Inspector General is removed
on Government Operations, respectively, as saying that the
from office or is transferred to another position or
move had the potential to politicize, and thereby undermine,
location within an establishment, the President shall
the position of inspector general (Robert Pear, “Ouster of
communicate in writing the reasons for any such
All Inspectors General by Reagan Called Political Move,”
removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not
New York Times, February 3, 1981, p. B14).
later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.
The controversy dissipated after President Reagan’s
Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel
action otherwise authorized by law, other than
nominees met with the approval of Congress. By the time
the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and
transfer or removal.
Human Resources of the House Committee on Government
For the inspectors general of designated federal entities
Operations held a hearing on April 1, 1981, Chairperson
(DFEs), which are listed in Section 8G(2) of the IG Act, the
Fountain stated that his concerns had been eased by the fact
same notice rule applies, except that the head of the DFE,
that five of the former inspectors general had been
rather than President, appoints and removes the inspector
renominated and the Administration had made other
general. For DFEs headed by boards, committees, or
commitments to support the inspector general system.
commissions, removal requires the written concurrence of
two-thirds of the members. The inspector general for the
Chairperson Fountain, though, also described the impact of
U.S. Postal Service may be removed only with agreement
the removals:
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
This action undoubtedly had an adverse effect on
 On May 15, 2020, President Trump notified Congress
the operations of the offices whose directors were
that he intends to remove inspector general for the State
abruptly removed. Much more serious damage was
Department, Steven Linick, because he no longer had
done, however, by the perception that Inspectors
the “fullest confidence” in Linick (letter from Donald
General were being viewed in the same light as
Trump, to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, May 15, 2020). As of
political appointees, who expect to be removed with
this writing the 30-day notice window has not elapsed.
each change in administrations (U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Government Operations,
In each case, legislators have objected to the lack of
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and
specificity in these notices (see, for example, letter from
Senator Chuck Grassley et al. to Donald Trump, April 8,
Human Resources, Oversight of Offices of
2020). Senators received more information from the Obama
Inspector General, 97th Cong., 1st sess., April 1,
Administration (letter from Norm Eisen, Special Counsel
1981, pp. 1-2).
for Ethics and Government Reform, to Senators Joseph
As this comment illustrates, some considered removal
Lieberman and Susan Collins, June 16, 2009).
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 since 1978. Because it is
partisan political actors.
not possible to describe these cases with certainty from the
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 also at least three instances of a President acting
allow removal of inspectors general only for reasons that
to remove an inspector general since 2008:
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, because
he no longer had the “fullest confidence” in Atkinson
Constitutional Limits on Congress’s Policy Options
(letter from Donald Trump, to Senators Richard Burr
Some policy options that limit the removal of executive
and Mark Warner, April 3, 2020). The removal
branch officials could raise separation of powers concerns.
requirements for the inspector general for the
Congress may explore those issues before enacting
Intelligence Community are under Title 50, Section
legislation that could later be challenged in the courts.
3033(c)(4), of the United States Code, which has the
same requirements as the IG Act.
Ben Wilhelm, Analyst in Government Organization and
Management
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

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

IF11546


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 2 · UPDATED

---