Eight former federal inspectors general have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration following their dismissal from their positions last month. The legal action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges their terminations which were delivered via brief email correspondence.
The group contends that their removals violated federal law, which requires the White House to provide Congress with 30 days’ advance notice and a detailed explanation for such dismissals. The plaintiffs represent oversight positions from major federal departments including Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, Education, Agriculture, Labor, State, and the Small Business Administration.
In their 32-page legal filing, the former watchdogs argue that their removals have created significant concern throughout the inspector general community and may intimidate other oversight officials from carrying out their duties effectively. The terminated officials include Rob Storch from Defense, Michael Missal from VA, Christi Grimm from HHS, Sandra Bruce from Education, Phyllis Fong from Agriculture, Larry Turner from Labor, Cardell Richardson from State, and Hannibal “Mike” Ware from the SBA.
The dismissals occurred just four days after President Trump began his second term, with the White House citing “changing priorities” as the justification. Of the Senate-confirmed inspectors general, only two at cabinet-level positions retained their roles – those overseeing Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.
The timing of the lawsuit follows the recent termination of USAID Inspector General Paul Martin, a Biden appointee, who was dismissed after his office released a critical report regarding the Trump administration’s impact on USAID’s operations and staffing levels.
According to the legal complaint, President Trump has failed to provide Congress with the required written notification or detailed justification for the removals. The only public explanation came during a January 25 press interaction, where the President stated he didn’t know the inspectors general personally but had heard concerns about fairness and job performance from unnamed sources. The lawsuit challenges this explanation as insufficient, noting that Trump did not specify which individuals these concerns pertained to or provide evidence of any performance issues.
The plaintiffs emphasize in their filing that inspectors general must maintain independence and serve as effective oversight mechanisms rather than compliant administrators. They argue that the mass dismissals have created a chilling effect throughout the inspector general community, potentially compromising their ability to conduct independent oversight and serve the American public’s interests.
The complaint particularly focuses on the administration’s failure to follow proper procedural requirements for removing inspectors general, highlighting the contrast between the brief dismissal notices and the legally required detailed explanations and Congressional notification period. This legal challenge represents a significant pushback against what the plaintiffs characterize as an unprecedented removal of multiple independent watchdogs across federal agencies.
The case, filed in Washington, D.C., seeks reinstatement of the terminated inspectors general to their former positions. The lawsuit names the Trump-appointed leaders or acting heads of each affected agency as defendants, setting the stage for a legal battle over the scope of executive authority in removing independent oversight officials and the requirements for such removals under federal law.