Congress

Fears are growing that Trump could push out dozens of government watchdogs

Published

2 years ago

November 25, 2024

Two in-house investigators at U.S. intelligence agencies recently quit their jobs. There’s growing fear in Washington that they could be the start of an exodus — or a purge — of government watchdogs.

A wave of departures by inspectors general would give President-elect Donald Trump the opportunity to nominate or appoint people of his choice to the watchdog posts — leaving dozens of federal departments, agencies and offices subject to oversight by people who would owe their positions to Trump.

In the wake of Trump’s election, CIA Inspector General Robin Ashton and Intelligence Community Inspector General Thomas Monheim revealed they plan to leave government in the coming weeks. Neither cited Trump’s victory as a basis for the decision, but the timing of the announcements troubled some longtime advocates for IGs.

“I’m very disappointed that the two IGs have resigned,” said former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich. “My view is that when things get tough, IGs should not resign, but instead redouble their efforts to do their jobs. Doing a tough job in difficult circumstances is what they bargained for. I think preemptively resigning makes things too easy for the incoming administration to avoid oversight. To prematurely run for the exits, in my view, that is not the way to handle the responsibility.”

“I'm very disappointed that the two IGs have resigned,” said former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.

Trump frequently clashed in his first term with some IGs, who are responsible for investigating alleged misconduct by the government, and his team briefly floated a plan to call on all of them to resign, though Trump never did. This time around, Trump allies have urged the president-elect to clean house and remove from their positions all watchdogs appointed by other presidents, though it’s unclear if Trump will do so.

“I really hope that people that have a backbone don’t resign,” said Kathryn Newcomer, a professor of public policy at George Washington University and co-author of a book on IGs. “That’s very worrisome.”

Spokespeople for Ashton and Monheim did not respond directly to questions about whether Trump’s return played any role in their decisions to resign, which were first reported by the Project on Government Oversight. Both departing officials have spent decades in the federal government. But critics say the outgoing IGs should’ve announced their departures sooner and given the Biden administration the chance to nominate and confirm replacements.

Trump allies have called to replace all IGs

More than 70 inspectors general serve in posts at agencies across the federal government, tasked with ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse, and investigating alleged misconduct. They generate thousands of reports each year and claim to have identified hundreds of billions of dollars in potential savings.

Inspectors general “drive efficiency and effectiveness,” said Diana Shaw, a former acting IG at the State Department. “If you don’t have IGs, nobody is minding the store.”

Some Trump allies have urged the president-elect to install his own appointees in the watchdog posts — about half of which are subject to Senate confirmation. About 10 of the posts are currently filled by officials installed or confirmed during Trump’s first term. Another 10 are vacant.

People involved in drafting the conservative Heritage Foundation blueprint Project 2025 have advocated for wholesale replacement of inspectors general and suggested they could be viewed as part of the “deep state” Trump has crusaded against.

“In a new administration, would you rather have some fresh eyes on programs or Miss IG Debbie DC, who’s been around for half a decade, and is up to the same old stuff,” Heritage Oversight Project Director Mike Howell said in a training video obtained by ProPublica and Documented. “Fresh eyes, fresh administration, makes for better oversight, and, you know, better political management of the bureaucracy.”

But other conservative activists oppose a major overhaul of the IG ranks, arguing that many key revelations about waste and corruption in government have come from IG reports and that treating the jobs as typical political posts would undercut the credibility of their work.

“It seems more likely that there may be a demand for IG resignations or outright firings this time around, but if … going forward all IGs are merely political appointees, then what’s the purpose of having IGs? It’s a fig leaf at that point with no real independence,” said Jason Foster, founder of the whistleblower group Empower Oversight. “The value of IG objectivity would be destroyed, and their offices would just be a duplicate bureaucracy that should probably be replaced by better and more effective legislative branch-controlled oversight agencies.”

A spokesperson for the Trump transition team did not respond to questions about his plans for the inspectors general and whether he agrees with those calling for a broad purge.

While Trump’s election has led to concern among many federal government workers, particularly over his plans to dismantle civil service protections, the worries in the IG workforce are particularly acute.

“Everyone is just a nervous wreck,” said a staffer in one IG office, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Trump’s tense first-term relations with IGs

Trump has had an uneasy history with inspectors general from the outset of his first term. Days before Trump took office in 2017, a transition team staffer reached out to several IGs and said they could continue in their jobs temporarily while a search for replacements was underway. Talk of a wholesale replacement of IGs — which would buck longstanding precedent — caused some alarm on Capitol Hill, and Trump’s team quickly backed down, describing the action as an error by a junior aide.

“I’ve spoken with the general counsel at the White House on this topic,” House Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said at a February 2017 hearing with several inspectors general. “I think it is safe to say that that was a mistake. They wish it hadn’t happened. It is not their approach. It’s not their intention.”

During a span of six weeks in 2020, Trump ousted five inspectors general. He sacked Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s chief watchdog, after Atkinson referred to Congress a whistleblower complaint about Trump’s efforts to link Ukraine aid to an announcement of an investigation into the Biden family. Trump also removed an IG overseeing pandemic relief programs and another at the State Department.

“It was like an earthquake through the IG community,” Bromwich recalled. “People said, ‘Oh my God, why are we being focused on all of a sudden?’”

Trump and his allies have also signaled that he intends to be more insistent in his second term that his appointees and even rank-and-file government workers show loyalty to him and his administration.

Many in the IG community have their eyes on whether Trump moves to push out Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. He was nominated by President Barack Obama and served through the first Trump term and through Joe Biden’s presidency. Several of Horowitz’s reports have provided fodder for Trump’s complaints about sloppy surveillance practices, leaks to the media and signs of anti-Trump sentiment among some at the FBI.

But Trump and his allies have griped that Horowitz stopped short of concluding that political bias affected Trump-related investigations. The president-elect and GOP lawmakers have also faulted the DOJ IG for taking too long — sometimes years — to complete sensitive investigations.

The Grassley factor

One member of Congress has been viewed for decades as the patron saint of inspectors general on Capitol Hill: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). His voice could be critical to whether Trump winds up taking or ignoring some conservatives’ advice to wholesale oust IGs. In addition, several former aides to Grassley, such as former Judiciary Committee counsel and conservative firebrand Mike Davis, hold positions of influence in Trump’s orbit.

Grassley has repeatedly clashed with presidents of both parties when he has perceived them to be intruding on IGs’ independence. And he has called for case-by-case explanations when an inspector general is removed, something that might be difficult for Trump to offer in a government-wide purge. Legislation co-sponsored by Grassley and passed in 2022 requires the president to inform Congress of the “substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons” before firing or removing an IG. The law also prevents Trump or any president from naming as an acting IG someone who isn’t already working as or for such a watchdog.

Asked Wednesday whether Trump should pursue a broad ouster of IGs, Grassley replied bluntly: “No. He should not.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley's voice could be critical to whether Trump winds up taking or ignoring some conservatives’ advice to wholesale oust IGs.

“I guess it’s the case of whether he believes in congressional oversight, because I work closely with all the inspector generals and I think I’ve got a good reputation for defending them. And I intend to defend them,” the Iowa Republican added.

When Trump lashed out at IGs during his first term, Grassley publicly urged him to ease up, arguing that they were actually advancing his agenda of accountability for the sprawling federal government.

“I encourage Pres Trump 2view IGs as helpers 2hold bureaucracy accountable+draining swamp,” Grassley wrote on X in 2020.

However, last week, Grassley sent every inspector general in the federal government ademand for information about sexual harassment settlements involving employees of the watchdog offices. The move seemed to raise the possibility he could be gathering data that Trump’s team could use to target specific IG offices.

A spokesperson for Grassley did not respond to a request for comment, but advocates for the IGs expressed hope that the long-serving senator will temper whatever plans Trump may have to upend the watchdog operations — some of which were first set up in the late 1970s.

“I know from personal experience that Sen. Grassley has been a strong proponent of IGs for forever,” Bromwich said. “I would think that he’s going to be consistent with the beliefs that he has advanced throughout his career, rather than bowing to the whims of Donald Trump and some of his people, he will fight to keep the IGs independent. … That will be telling, whether Senator Grassley exercises that influence.”

Congress

Republicans aren’t exactly flocking to Trump’s midterm convention

Published

1 hour ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump has a vision for next week’s GOP convention in Dallas: a televised spectacle putting Republican candidates in front of midterm voters and top party donors just two months before the Election Day — with Trump himself headlining the show.

But a Blue Light News survey of more than 70 GOP candidates and members revealed that most either do not plan to attend or are still weighing whether to go. Dozens more declined to share their plans.

The 45 Republicans cited a variety of reasons for skipping the first midterm convention put on by a major party in more than four decades. Some cited prior obligations such as fundraisers or events in their districts that were planned before the convention was scheduled in June. Others had personal conflicts, like weddings and family events, and still others raised qualms about the five-figure-minimum fees that party officials want attending lawmakers to pony up.

And some Republicans in tough races are steering clear of the gathering — which has come to be called “Trump-a-palooza” in some GOP circles — as they face growing hesitation about associating themselves with the polarizing president so close to the election.

“I just felt I’d be more useful in my district,” said Rep. Tom Barrett, who is facing a tough campaign to keep his central Michigan seat. “I travel a lot for this job and if I can be back home and see my family and do the job back home as well, then that’s sort of what I lean toward doing.”

Asked if the president’s remarks might cause him problems back home, Barrett said: “I can’t control what the president’s going to say at the convention, but I can control where I’m at, what I’m doing.”

Several other Republicans in key races targeted by Democrats said they weren’t committing to attend.

“I’m going to be in my district,” Rep. Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) said when asked about his plans, while Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.) said, “I’m not sure yet.” Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.) isn’t planning to go, according to people granted anonymity to describe his decision. And Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said he instead plans to visit colleges with his daughter.

Trump will be the headline speaker of the two-day convention inside the American Airlines Center, with Vice President JD Vance also set to address Republicans.

Most top House and Senate GOP leaders will be in attendance, including Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune. Some potential 2028 presidential contenders, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), will also be in attendance, as will some Senate Republicans from marquee battleground races.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers, who is trying to flip retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters’ seat in Michigan, and Sen. Jon Husted, who is working to fend off a challenge from former Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio, will both attend, according to their campaigns. Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), who is expected to be the next Senate GOP campaign chair, is also planning to be there.

Johnson said he has been “promoting this everywhere” as an important event for the party but also acknowledged it’s a crucial time for some of his members to spend time in their districts.

“They’ve got to all make their own individual decision … but the people that do come are going to have a great time,” Johnson said in an interview, adding that he expects high attendance during the convention. He acknowledged in a news conference Tuesday, however, that some members will need to be in their districts because “it’s critical time right before early voting begins nationwide.”

With Trump front and center at the convention, some Republicans are privately fretting about slipping presidential approval ratings in their districts amid the ongoing conflict in Iran, a trade war with Canada and rising prices from both. Other moves by the administration, such as a deal tackling beef imports to address affordability, have angered other key GOP constituencies.

One House Republican not attending the convention who was granted anonymity to speak candidly called the event “a waste of time” and said the planning has been “a mess.”

“You shouldn’t be having to rally your base at this point,” the member said. “You should be trying to convince independents. Independents are not attending nor watching the midterm convention.”

RNC national press secretary Natalie Baldassarre said in a statement responding to those claims that “the outreach and enthusiasm to attend, participate, and speak at this historic midterm convention has been incredible.”

“Republicans across the country are rallying behind President Trump’s America First agenda that’s brought lower drug prices, lower taxes, and a secure border, and this convention will provide the momentum needed to expand our majorities in November,” she added.

But even some Republicans who might benefit from campaigning with Trump said the costs members are being asked to pay to attend were getting in the way. Another House Republican granted anonymity to speak candidly pointed to the $25,000 minimum attendee donation suggested by the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is distributing RNC-provided tickets to members.

“I didn’t want to go anyways. That made it easier,” the member said.

According to an NRCC memo obtained by POLITICO, that donation gives a member the right to book one hotel room in the committee’s block as well as two tickets to a welcome reception and the convention itself. Higher tiers of giving up to $100,000 come with access to additional rooms, tickets and events. An NRCC spokesperson declined to comment.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) cited the price tag in explaining why he is still “not sure” whether he would attend.

“It’s $25,000, apparently — I just got a bill,” said Burchett.

With the convention being seen inside the party as a key late fundraising opportunity, several GOP lawmakers who intend to be there, including some committee chairs, plan to give much more than $25,000, according to three people familiar with the planning for the event.

But other powerful members are taking a pass, including two of the most senior members of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. Ohio Rep. Bob Latta, who chairs the panel’s Energy subcommittee, said he had events back in his district, and Virginia Rep. Morgan Griffith, who chairs the Oversight subpanel, said he preferred to be home campaigning.

“I should be safe,” Griffith said in an interview. “But no member of Congress from the 9th Congressional District of Virginia has left voluntarily since 1952.”

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole said he is not attending because he has a dove-hunting event back home in Oklahoma.

Several northeastern members, including Reps. Chris Smith of New Jersey and Andrew Garbarino of New York, said they have commitments in their districts related to the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Less surprising are the alternate plans being made by moderate Republicans who are facing tough elections in the fall and don’t necessarily benefit from being associated with the president.

A campaign spokesperson for Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said she will not be in attendance, citing a “long standing practice of not going to conventions while she is in cycle.”

“I’m not a party guy,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said in an interview Tuesday, explaining why he won’t be in Texas next week. “I believe in ending the two-party system. Get back to our roots as a country.”

Riley Rogerson, Kelsey Brugger, Katherine Tully-McManus and Calen Razor contributed to this report.

Congress

Congress warms to Trump’s Hollywood tax credit effort

Published

1 hour ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Donald Trump picked up fresh bipartisan support for a federal film tax credit Tuesday, while an adviser to one of his Hollywood ambassadors told Blue Light News that legislation could come within weeks.

“Something can be introduced this month and as early as within the next couple of weeks,” said Scott Karol, a producer who, along with Jon Voight and his manager, Steven Paul, met with Trump on Monday to discuss the issue.

The legislation is “going to get pushed by Ways and Means,” said Karol, referring to the House committee that handles tax policy. “You are going to see a bipartisan presentation of this.”

On Tuesday, Trump posted on social media for the second consecutive day to tout support for the effort, giving the prospective legislation a name: the Motion Picture, Television and Entertainment Revitalization Act. It comes after a decadeslong exodus of film and TV shoots to countries including Canada and the United Kingdom, which have long offered lucrative incentives that in some cases have become juicier than even the most generous state-level programs.

A bipartisan group of House members from California, which more than doubled the size of its incentive last year to $750 million annually, and Georgia, which has seen blockbuster productions flee across the Atlantic, has also embraced the president’s call for Congress to “immediately” create a federal production tax credit.

The swift and wide-ranging response in support of the tax credit shows momentum for an effort led by an Oscar-winning screen icon whose star crested decades ago and backed by a coalition that includes studios, guilds and some of the president’s most strident critics in Congress. But even with the fresh hope for Hollywood, where industry figures have long dreamed of a federal production incentive, creating a major new tax break would be a tall order in a closely divided Congress.

The film and TV production incentive that is being discussed would include a 20 percent credit for labor both in front of and behind the camera, Karol said. It could also include a mechanism requiring that the vast majority of the work would go to U.S. personnel, according to the two people with knowledge of the legislative effort who were granted anonymity to describe internal deliberations.

“This is going to go through the great grinder that is Congress,” said Karol, who added that the legislation could include “upticks” for projects that shoot in enterprise zones.

Cost concerns

Proponents of the legislation — among them Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Calif.), who has taken a lead role in the effort — have noted that its bipartisan support reflects a reality: several states with sizable production ecosystems are led by Republicans.

“Eighteen months ago, I was fighting to convince my colleagues that the departure of film production from our country was a national problem,” said Friedman, whose Los Angeles-area district includes several entertainment companies, in a statement. “Now the President is asking for the same bill a group of us have been working on. Doors that were closed to us a year ago are open this morning. My job now is to keep the coalition together: the unions, the studios, and members of both parties, and do whatever it takes to get this bill to the floor for a vote and signed into law.”

Republicans from states with flagging film and TV industries, including Georgia and Florida, also expressed support, despite some wariness about helping an industry not known for backing conservative causes — as well as concerns about the cost of doing so.

Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida, a senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee who’s not seeking reelection, said that he hoped Trump could sign a film credit into law by the end of 2026.

“Whatever we can do to be supportive is a good thing,” he said.

Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) told Blue Light News that he was “really not a big fan of federal subsidies because, once again, we’re in 30 percent deficit spending right now.”

“Georgia’s a major film-producing place, and I always want to help Georgia out,” he said. “But I also want to make sure that it makes sense for the American people when it comes to how we pay for it and how much comes back to us in tax money.”

Rep. Buddy Carter, another Georgia Republican, said that entertainment production “has been an economic boon for us.” The state, he said, has benefited from “the investment that’s been made,” citing jobs, tax revenue and tourism.

‘We need a Truth Social post’

Top lawmakers in both parties have discussed passing a bipartisan tax package after the midterm elections. It’s possible, according to the two people with knowledge of the legislative push for the incentive, that a bill to create the credit could be introduced then. But November’s results will influence how much legislating congressional leaders will want to do before the close of the year, leaving the fate of a lame-duck tax bill up in the air.

“We hope when we‘re in the majority that this is something that we can address,” House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said. “Maybe this is a source of something that we can do between now and then if there‘s bipartisan support.”

During their meeting with the president on Monday, Voight made “an impassioned plea to the president,” said Paul, one of the actor’s advisers.

“Jon, as you can imagine, really has a love for our business. He feels fatherly over it. It hurts him to see what is happening,” said Paul, adding that the actor “has been by our sides” at meetings with Hollywood interests supportive of the legislation, including unions and the Motion Picture Association.

During their meeting, Paul said that an admission he made got the president’s attention. Paul, who also is a producer, told Trump that he was making a new film about Richard Nixon, but said he was “ashamed” to admit he might have to shoot it overseas, owing to incentives available outside the U.S.

“What do you need from me?” Trump replied, according to Karol.

Voight’s advisers told the president, “We need a Truth Social post,” Karol said.

Before long, the president was telling his followers that a federal production incentive could be created “quickly, accurately, efficiently and, importantly, will benefit ALL of America.”

A White House official declined to discuss the meeting but said in a statement, “President Trump is right: American movies should be made in America. The President is Making Hollywood Great Again while creating high paying jobs right here in the United States.”

Karol and Paul — who along with Voight also met on Monday with MPA officials, including CEO Charles Rivkin — acknowledged that there is much work to be done. Asked about McCormick’s reservations over the cost of a potential federal incentive, Karol said “that kind of concern is valid.”

“Having said that, there are a number of industries that receive government support because of their importance for one reason or another,” he said. “This is the greatest American export. American movies need to be made in America and by Americans. This legislation will have an immediate impact in the United States.”

Congress

Jeffries says Dems who saved GOP’s agenda deserve ‘serious response’

Published

9 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his leadership team announced they are eyeing punishment for two House Democrats who bucked their party Tuesday.

Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Jared Golden of Maine broke with leadership to advance a key procedural vote that revived Republicans’ legislative agenda. The incredibly rare crossing of party lines incensed many House Democrats and top leaders who were then forced to vote on a slate of GOP priorities.

“The decision by two of our colleagues to blindside the entire House Democratic Caucus and join with the Republican majority to pass a procedural rule on the brink of failing represents a significant breach of trust,” Jeffries said in a statement with Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Pete Aguilar of California. “It is an action that necessitates a serious response, and we have asked the Committee on Caucus Rules to take this up in short order.”

Spokespeople for Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Golden told reporters Tuesday he backed the measure because it provided for passage of a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in his home state while delaying the implementation of fishing regulations meant to protect the North Atlantic right whale population.

House leadership has a number of disciplinary levers at their disposal, including stripping members of committees. When Blue Light News asked Jeffries Tuesday evening if he was considering consequences for the two rogue members, he said, “We haven’t ruled anything in, and we haven’t ruled anything out.”