INSIGHTi

Removal of Inspectors General: The First Tests
of New Statutory Requirements
May 20, 2024
In the past two months, President Biden has twice exercised his authority to change the leadership of
inspector general (IG) offices by notifying Congress of his intent to remove the IG for the Railroad
Retirement Board (RRB) and replacing the acting IG for the Department of Commerce. These are the first
times a President has initiated the removal of an IG under changes to the Inspector General Act that were
enacted in December 2022.
Congress has regularly supported independence of IGs to ensure that they can effectively perform their
oversight duties. Congress has established statutory requirements for the removal of IGs based on a
concern that removal could be used as a tactic to stymie IG work that might lead to findings critical of an
agency or Administration.
This Insight briefly describes recent changes to IG removal statutes and examines the first applications of
the new law.
Recent Changes to Removal Requirements
In 2022, Congress passed amendments to the Inspector General Act that increased removal protections for
IGs. Since its initial enactment, the Inspector General Act has included some form of notice to Congress
when IGs are removed from their positions, but formal actions to remove IGs were rare before the mid-
2000s. In addition to advance notice to Congress, current law bars removals with immediate effect in
most circumstances and limits who may serve as an acting IG in the event of a vacancy.
Since the enactment of the 2022 amendments, a notification to Congress must include a “substantive
rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons” for the removal action. Under the prior language
of the Inspector General Act, which was less directive, at least one federal court had ruled that the
President met the notice requirement by informing Congress only that he had lost confidence in the IG
being removed.
In addition, the 2022 amendments limit when an IG may be placed on non-duty status to ensure that the
30-day notice period cannot be circumvented without specific, stated justification. That provision requires
that the President either provide Congress written notice 15 days before placing an IG on non-duty status
or issue a determination that “the continued presence of the Inspector General in the workplace poses a
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12363
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
threat described in” Title 5, Section 6329b(b)(2)(A), of the U.S. Code, which pertains to circumstances in
which the employee poses a threat to other employees, government property, or legitimate government
interests. Finally, within 15 days of the removal of an IG, the acting IG must report to Congress on the
work being conducted by the office at the time of removal action.
Removal of the RRB Inspector General
On March 29, 2024, President Biden notified Congress that he would be removing the RRB IG following
the required 30-day notice period, stating that he no longer had the “fullest confidence” in the IG as the
result of an ongoing investigation by the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency, a body created by Congress specifically to investigate misconduct by senior
officials in the IG community.
The President’s letter to Congress was accompanied by background information from the White House
Counsel’s office that the Integrity Committee had found “credible evidence” of abusive treatment of staff
by the IG that created a toxic work environment and that the IG had “attempted to impede” the
investigation.
Additionally, President Biden specifically determined that the IG’s continued presence in the workplace
would pose a threat to legitimate government interests and, therefore, placed the IG on administrative
leave (a non-duty status) with immediate effect.
The President’s notification also informed Congress that the IG for the Tennessee Valley Authority, Ben
R. Wagner, would serve concurrently as acting RRB IG, as authorized under Title 5, Section 403(h)(2), of
the U.S. Code.
Replacement of Commerce Department Acting Inspector General
In January 2024, Department of Commerce IG resigned, and the deputy IG became the acting IG. The
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology had been investigating the Office of Inspector
General’s senior leadership following allegations of whistleblower retaliation and mismanagement of the
IG office. Based on information gathered in that investigation, on March 18, 2024, Science Committee
Chairman Frank Lucas and Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren asked President Biden to replace the acting IG
with an official from another IG office.
On May 1, 2024, President Biden notified Congress that he would appoint Jill Baisinger, an official in the
Department of the Interior’s IG office, to serve concurrently as acting Commerce IG at the end of the
required 30-day notice period. President Biden’s notification specifically cited the ongoing Science
Committee investigation and Lucas and Lofgren’s letter as the reason for the leadership change.
Effect of New Removal Provisions on Notifications
Compared to previous congressional notifications regarding the removal of IGs, these two notices from
President Biden provided more information and explanation for the actions. Specific reference to ongoing
investigations by officials outside the White House may signal that there is evidence of misconduct within
the IG office that may justify the President’s response and alleviate concerns that the action was intended
to undermine IG independence. In the case of the acting Commerce IG, for instance, the leaders of the
House Science Committee referenced the notification to connect their investigation and the President’s
action.
At the same time, at least one Member has raised concerns about the adequacy of the notification
regarding the removal of the RRB IG. In a letter to President Biden, Senator Chuck Grassley argued that
the notification did not provide sufficient detail on the case-specific reasons for the IG’s removal and

---

Congressional Research Service
3
placement on non-duty status. Regardless of how Congress evaluates these notices, how Members and the
body respond is likely to help shape future practice and the information that officials provide when
removing an IG.

Author Information

Ben Wilhelm

Analyst in Government Organization and Management




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.

IN12363 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---