Updated May 6, 2024
Removal of Inspectors General: Rules, Practice, and
Considerations for Congress
In 1978, Congress passed the Inspector General Act (IG
The 30-day notice requirement was established under the
Act; P.L. 95-452) with the intent to improve oversight
Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-409), and
within certain executive branch agencies. During the floor
the requirement that notice include a “substantive rationale”
debate on the legislation, Senator Thomas Eagleton
was added by the Securing Inspector General Independence
described independence as the “most important”
Act of 2022 (Title LII, Subtitle A, of P.L. 117-263).
characteristic of the inspectors general (Congressional
Further, in most cases, the President must provide Congress
Record, vol. 124, part 29, October 22, 1978, p. 30952).
with written notice 15 days before placing an IG on non-
While this independence has been considered essential, it is
duty status and cannot do so at all during the 30-day notice
also weighed against the fact that inspectors general (IGs)
period before removal of an IG without a specific finding
are situated within the agencies and that their dual mission
regarding the potential threat posed by the IG to employees
is to report to both agency leaders and Congress. This calls
or the interest of the government.
for consideration of the balance between independence
from and general supervision by agencies.
Additionally, when an IG position is vacant, the “first
assistant” is the designated acting IG. However, the
The removal procedures for IGs fall between removal
President may appoint another official working in an IG
without limitations and removal only for cause and have
office to serve as an acting IG instead. Such an appointment
been considered an integral element of IG independence
also requires 30-day advance notice to Congress including a
since 1978. Nonetheless, Presidents have removed IGs,
substantive rationale for the action.
creating concerns in Congress regarding the independence
of IGs, which have led to both oversight of and changes to
Removal Practice
statutory removal requirements.
There are several examples of Presidents removing IGs. A
common theme across those examples, which are outlined
This In Focus provides an overview of the current removal
below, is concern from Congress that removals have the
procedure for IGs, identifies past presidential removals, and
potential to undermine the actual and perceived
discusses potential issues for Congress.
independence of IGs.
Removal Procedure
President Reagan’s Removal of All Inspectors
The removal procedure for presidentially appointed IGs is
General
found in Title 5, Section 403(b), of the U.S. Code. The
During presidential transitions, turnover of most political
section reads in part:
appointees is the norm. New Presidents have the authority
to remove IGs at the start of their Administrations and make
An Inspector General may be removed from office
their own nominations. However, following such action at
by the President. If an Inspector General is removed
the start of the Reagan Administration, practice has
from office or is transferred to another position or
disfavored removal of IGs during presidential transitions.
location within an establishment, the President shall
communicate in writing the substantive rationale,
One of President Ronald Reagan’s first official acts upon
including detailed and case-specific reasons for any
his inauguration on January 20, 1981, was to remove all 15
such removal or transfer to both Houses of
confirmed and acting IGs then working across the executive
Congress (including the appropriate congressional
branch. This action appears to have caused bipartisan
concern in Congress. On February 3, 1981, an article in the
committees), not later than 30 days before the
New York Times quoted Representatives L. H. Fountain and
removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall
Frank Horton—the chair and ranking member of the House
prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by
Committee on Government Operations, respectively—as
law, other than transfer or removal.
saying that the move had the potential to politicize, and
For the IGs appointed by agency heads under Title 5,
thereby undermine, the position of IG (Robert Pear, “Ouster
Section 415, the same notice rule applies, except that the
of All Inspectors General by Reagan Called Political
head of the agency, rather than President, appoints and
Move,” New York Times, February 3, 1981, p. B14).
removes the IG. For agencies headed by boards,
committees, or commissions, removal requires the written
The controversy dissipated after President Reagan’s
concurrence of two-thirds of the members. The IG of the
nominees (including many of the previously removed IGs)
U.S. Postal Service may be removed only with agreement
were well received by Congress. The Subcommittee on
of seven out of nine postal governors and only “for cause.”
Intergovernmental Relations and Human Resources of the
House Committee on Government Operations held a
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Removal of Inspectors General: Rules, Practice, and Considerations for Congress
hearing on April 1, 1981, at which Chairman Fountain
Replacing an acting IG with another official is another
stated that his concerns had been eased by the renomination
personnel action that Congress has determined raises
of five of the former IGs. Chairman Fountain also described
similar independence concerns to the removal of a
the impact of the removals:
confirmed IG. There are at least three examples of such
actions:
This action undoubtedly had an adverse effect on
the operations of the offices whose directors were
1. On April 7, 2020, President Trump
abruptly removed. Much more serious damage was
replaced Glenn Fine as acting Department
done, however, by the perception that Inspectors
of Defense IG with Environmental
General were being viewed in the same light as
Protection Agency IG Sean O’Donnell.
political appointees, who expect to be removed with
2. On May 15, 2020, President Trump
each change in administrations (U.S. Congress,
replaced Mitch Behm as acting
House Committee on Government Operations,
Department of Transportation IG with
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and
Howard Elliot, who also served as the
Human Resources, Oversight of Offices of
director of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Inspector General, 97th Cong., 1st sess., April 1,
Materials Safety Administration.
1981, pp. 1-2).
3. On May 1, 2024, President Biden notified
Congress of his intent to replace the
Following the actions at the beginning of the Reagan
Acting IG of the Department of
Administration, some Members of Congress have pushed
Commerce, Roderick Anderson, with a
new Administrations to retain IGs. For instance, in both
senior official in the Department of the
1988 and 1992, Senators John Glenn and William Roth, the
Interior’s IG Office, Jill Baisinger.
chair and vice chair of the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs, sent letters to Presidents-elect
It has sometimes been suggested that other IGs have
George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton emphasizing this
resigned under threat of removal since 1978. Because it is
position. Since 1981, IGs have remained in their positions
not possible to describe these cases with certainty from the
during each presidential transition.
publicly available materials, they are not discussed here.
Nonetheless, because such actions may impact the
Recent Presidential Removals of Inspectors
independence of IGs, Congress may monitor or investigate
General
reports of such incidents.
There are also at least four instances of a President acting to
Considerations for Congress
remove an IG since 2008, when the congressional notice
requirement was added to the IG Act:
The removal of IGs has remained a topic of interest for
Congress since 1978. Below are some aspects of the issue
1. On June 11, 2009, President Barack
that Congress may wish to keep in mind when conducting
Obama notified Congress of his intent to
oversight regarding the IG community.
remove the IG of the Corporation for
National Community Service, Gerald
Effectiveness of New Procedures
Walpin.
Congress now has examples of presidential removal of an
IG and replacement of an acting IG under the new notice
2. On April 3, 2020, President Donald
requirements enacted in 2022. While the Biden
Trump notified Congress of his intent to
Administration’s notices under the revised statute provided
remove the IG of the Intelligence
more information than previous notices did, Congress may
Community, Michael Atkinson.
wish to evaluate their legal sufficiency and usefulness.
3. On May 15, 2020, President Trump
notified Congress of his intent to remove
Additional Removal Protections
the IG of the State Department, Steven
Congress might also consider additional actions that would
Linick.
limit IG removal. The most frequently discussed of these
4. On March 29, 2024, President Joe Biden
options has been to allow removal of IGs only for reasons
notified Congress of his intent to remove
that fall within a provided definition of good cause. The
the IG of the Railroad Retirement Board,
version of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 that
Martin Dickman.
initially passed the House (H.R. 928, 110th Congress, as
In each case, some Members of Congress objected to the
engrossed by the House), for instance, provided that IGs
lack of specificity in these notices. The “substantive
would serve for fixed seven-year terms and could be
rationale” requirement added to the IG Act in 2022 applied
removed only for specified reasons.
to President Biden’s removal of IG Dickman and is
Constitutional Limits on Congress’s Policy Options
intended to provide Congress more detail on removal
Some policy options that limit the removal of executive
actions. While President Biden provided more information
branch officials could raise separation of powers concerns.
to Congress regarding an ongoing misconduct investigation
Congress may explore those issues before enacting
involving the IG than past notices did, at least one Member
legislation that could later be challenged in the courts.
(Senator Chuck Grassley) has argued that the information
provided in this notice was still inadequate.
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 5 · UPDATED

---