Inspectors general watchdogs sue over Trump firings, alleging they are illegal

Feb. 12 (UPI) -- Eight federal inspectors general filed a lawsuit Wednesday alleging their firings by President Donald Trump violated federal law.

The suit was filed by eight of the 17 inspectors general fired by Trump from the departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, State, Agriculture, Education, Labor and the Small Business Administration.

"The purported firings violated unambiguous federal statutes -- each enacted by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed into law by the president -- to protect Inspectors General from precisely this sort of interference with the discharge of their critical, non-partisan oversight duties," the lawsuit said.

The suit adds that Trump's "attempt to eliminate a crucial and longstanding source of impartial, non-partisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa and Sen. Dick Durbin told Trump in a letter that IGs can be fired by presidents, but it must be done legally.

"While IGs aren't immune from committing acts requiring their removal, and they can be removed by the president, the law must be followed. IGs are critical to rooting out waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct within the Executive Branch bureaucracy, which you have publicly made clear you are also intent on doing," they wrote.

The lawsuit alleges violations of a 2022 federal law requiring 30 days notice for the firings. The law also requires substantial and specific rationale for the firings.

That law amended the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, according to the lawsuit.

"Just four days into his current term, however, President Trump, acting through a two-sentence email sent by the director or deputy director of the Office of Presidential Personnel, purported to remove from office (supposedly on account of "changing priorities") nearly a score of IGs (while retaining only two cabinet-level IGs)," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit said Trump's claims that the firings were "common" or "standard" were false.

The suit asserts that "in the last four decades, no incoming President has attempted upon taking office to remove en masse the IGs appointed in prior administrations."

The suit names the heads of the federal agencies for "preventing plaintiffs from carrying out their official duties and acting to cease payment of plaintiffs for their work as IGs."

The suit seeks injunctive relief and a finding that the firings violate the IG Act. The inspectors general also seek a ruling that plaintiffs remain as the lawful IGs of their respective agencies.