The Dictatorship
The chilling message behind Trump’s latest firing spree
President Donald Trump took the unusual step Friday of firing 18 of the federal government’s 73 inspectors general. Those let go — from the departments of Defense, State, Labor, Health and Human Services, among other places — were told only that “changing priorities” led to their dismissal.
Inspectors general, as they are called, are found all over Washington, D.C., in a wide range of agencies and departments. They seldom make news, but they play an important role in blowing the whistle on instances of gross inefficiencies or unlawful behavior and by not being the servants of any political party. In short, as Creighton University law professor Michael Kelly writes, the inspector general is a “modern adaptation to achieving the checks and balances the Framers of our Constitution intended when they created the federal government.”
So why would Trump go after them at the start of his second term?
This is not the first time Trump has targeted inspectors general.
Doing so, Kelly explains, “lays the groundwork for taking over that government from within.” As he puts it, “if the designated watchers aren’t watching, because they’ve been purged by the very abuse of power they were installed to prevent, then the way is open for more abuse and corruption to flow.”
The mass firing also sends a clear message not just to remaining inspectors general, including those at the departments of Justice and Homeland Security, but also to the rest of the federal bureaucracy: Get with the program or you will be next.
Downplaying the significance of the dismissals, the president told reporters that firing IGs is “a very common thing to do.”
“I don’t know them,” he told reporters, “But some people thought that some were unfair or some were not doing their job. It’s a very standard thing to do.’”
It’s true that this is not the first time Trump has targeted inspectors general. Late in his first term, he dismissed the inspectors general of five Cabinet departments. But unlike this time, those firings took place over a six-week period. And mass firings are exceptionally rare. Upon taking office in 1981, Ronald Reagan removed all 15 inspectors general then serving, only to rehire about half of them later. Since then, no president has removed more than two IGs — except for Trump.
Congress created the first inspector general position in 1976in an era of post-Watergate reform. Two years later, it passed the Inspector General Act of 1978. That law said that inspectors general should lead “independent and objective units,” which would, among other things, “conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations” of the departments and agencies in which they serve. And Congress made clear that these new officers did not just report to the executive branch. The law also required them to keep agency heads and Congress “fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of… programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action.”
Thirty years later, Congress amended the regulations around the IG rolerequiring that a president “shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer [of an inspector general] to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.”
The constitutional precedents here are similarly clear-cut.
As a 2021 Congressional Research Report notes“the legislative history of the 2008 amendment suggests that the purpose of this change was to ‘allow for an appropriate dialogue with Congress in the event that the planned transfer or removal is viewed as an inappropriate or politically motivated attempt to terminate an effective Inspector General.’”
In 2022, following Trump’s first term purge of IGs, Congress strengthened that requirement by saying that the president had to provide a “substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons” before terminating an IG.
The constitutional precedents here are similarly clear-cut. The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress’ exclusive authority “to create executive branch offices….and when necessary, design an office in a way that encourages operational independence from the political influence of the executive branch….” It also has made clear that the president’s removal power is not “illimitable.”
But neither clear statutes nor congressional authority or constitutional limits on the removal power seemed to matter to Trump or his allies. The president “has a right to get in there who he wants,” Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton argued — a more deferential approach than he has taken to Democratic presidents.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, who co-sponsored the 2008 amendment, nevertheless shrank from confronting Trump. “There may be good reason the IG were fired,” he insisted. And according to The Associated Press, Sen. Lindsey Graham even admitted that Trump had not followed statutes. “Just tell them you need to follow the law next time,” Graham said.
Such a casual attitude toward a president who ignores the law doesn’t augur well for what is to come.
A letter to the president from House Democrats was anything but casual. “Your actions,” it said, “violate the law, attack our democracy, and undermine the safety of the American people….Firing inspectors general without due cause is antithetical to good government, undermines the proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and degrades the federal government’s ability to function effectively and efficiently.”
They were right. But maybe those reasons were precisely why Trump did what he did Friday night.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. The views expressed here do not represent Amherst College.
The Dictatorship
The Latest: Justice Department will allow lawmakers to see unredacted Epstein files
Olympic Sports on TV for Wednesday, Feb. 11
Sports on TV for Wednesday, Feb. 11
10-wicket wins at the men’s T20 World Cup
The Dictatorship
‘Melania’ falls steeply at the box office
NEW YORK (AP) — Hollywood largely ceded attention to football over a slow box-office weekend, with the survival thriller “Send Help” repeating as No. 1 in ticket sales and the Melania Trump documentary “Melania” falling sharply in its second weekend.
Super Bowl weekend is typically one of the lowest attended moviegoing times of the year. It was the second slowest weekend last year and in 2024 it ranked dead last for moviegoing.
Studios instead put their focus on advertising movies for the massive television audience. Among the trailers expected to hit the NFL broadcast Sunday were The Walt Disney Co.’s “Mandalorian and Grogu,” Lionsgate’s Michael Jackson biopic, “Michael” and Universal Pictures’ “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.”
In North American theaters, the Disney.-20th Century Studios release “Send Help,” directed by Sam Raimi, lead all films with $10 million in its second weekend, according to studio estimates Sunday. With $53.7 million globally thus far, the R-rated survival thriller has proved a solid midbudget success. Disney meanwhile watched its remarkably long-lasting “Zootopia 2″ cross $1.8 billion worldwide in its 11th week of release.
“Melania,” from Amazon MGM, added 300 theaters in its second weekend but dropped steeply with to $2.4 million in ticket sales, down 67% from its much-discussed debut. The rapid downturn means the Brett Ratner-directed documentary is likely heading toward flop territory given its high price tag. Amazon MGM paid $40 million for film rights, plus some $35 million to market it.
The North American total for “Melania” stands at $13.4 million. Amazon MGM has not released international figures, though they’re expected to be paltry.
Kevin Wilson, head of domestic distribution for the studio, said the movie’s box-office performance “is a critical first moment that validates our wholistic distribution strategy, building awareness, engagement, and provides momentum ahead of the film’s eventual debut on Prime Video.”
The film’s ticket sales — which would be very good for a less expensive documentary — were a talking point throughout the week. Late-night hosts Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel hammered the movie’s sales. Kimmel called them a “rigged outcome.” Elsewhere in theaters, the Italy-set Kevin James romantic comedy “Solo Mio” debuted with a robust $7.2 million, a major win for Angel Studios, best known for its faith-based releases. “Stray Kids: The Dominate Experience,” a K-pop concert film released by Bleecker Street, launched with $5.6 million, and an additional $13.2 million overseas. The Luc Besson-directed Bram Stoker adaptation “Dracula” opened with $4.5 million, a studio-best debut for the indie distributor Vertical.
One of the most unusual releases in theaters, however, remains the low-budget indie “Iron Lung.” The YouTube filmmaker Markiplier, whose real name is Mark Fischbach, self-financed and self-distributed the R-rated video game adaptation, along with writing, directing and starring in it. In its second weekend, “Iron Lung” collected $6.2 million, bringing its two-week total to $31.2 million. It cost $3 million to make.
Top 10 movies by domestic box office
With final domestic figures being released Monday, this list factors in the estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Comscore:
1. “Send Help,” $10 million.
2. “Solo Mio,” $7.2 million.
3. “Iron Lung,” $6 million.
4. “Stray Kids: The Dominate Experience,” $5.6 million.
5. “Dracula,” $4.5 million.
6. “Zootopia 2,” $4 million.
7. “Avatar: Fire and Ash,” $3.5 million.
8. “The Strangers: Chapter 3,” $3.5 million.
9. “Shelter,” $2.4 million.
10. “Melania,” $2.4 million.
The Dictatorship
Why Trump doesn’t want home prices to fall
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump wants to keep home prices highbypassing calls to ramp up construction so people can afford what has been a ticket to the middle class.
Trump has instead argued for protecting existing owners who have watched the values of their homes climb. It’s a position that flies in the face of what many economists, the real estate industry, local officials and apartment dwellers say is needed to fix a big chunk of America’s affordability problem.
“I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes, and they can be assured that’s what’s going to happen,” Trump told his Cabinet on Jan. 29.
That approach could bolster the Republican president’s standing with older voters, a group that over time has been more likely to vote in midterm elections. Those races in November will determine whether Trump’s party can retain control of the House and Senate.
“You have a lot of people that have become wealthy in the last year because their house value has gone up,” Trump said. “And you know, when you get the housing — when you make it too easy and too cheap to buy houses — those values come down.”
But by catering to older baby boomers on housing, Trump risks alienating the younger voters who expanded his coalition in 2024 and helped him win a second term, and he could wade into a “generational war” in the midterms, said Brent Buchanan, whose polling firm Cygnal advises Republicans.
“The under-40 group is the most important right now — they are the ones who put Trump in the White House,” Buchanan said. “Their desire to show up in an election or not is going to make the difference in this election. If they feel that Donald Trump is taking care of the boomers at their expense, that is going to hurt Republicans.”
The logic in appealing to older voters
In the 2024 presidential election, 81% of Trump’s voters were homeowners, according to AP VoteCast data. This means many of his supporters already have mortgages with low rates or own their homes outright, possibly blunting the importance of housing as an issue.
Older voters tend to show up to vote more than do younger people, said Oscar Pocasangre, a senior data analyst at liberal think tank New America who has studied the age divide in U.S. politics. “However, appealing to older voters may prove to be a misguided policy if what’s needed to win is to expand the voting base,” Pocasangre said.
Before the 2026 elections, voters have consistently rated affordability as a top concern, and that is especially true for younger voters with regard to housing.
Booker Lightman, 30, a software engineer in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, who identifies politically as a libertarian Republican, said the shortage of housing has been a leading problem in his state.
Lightman just closed on a home last month, and while he and his wife, Alice, were able to manage the cost, he said that the lack of construction is pushing people out of Colorado. “There’s just not enough housing supply,” he said.
Shay Hata, a real estate agent in the Chicago and Denver areas, said she handles about 100 to 150 transactions a year. But she sees the potential for a lot more. “We have a lack of inventory to the point where most properties, particularly in the suburbs, are getting between five and 20 offers,” she said, describing what she sees in the Chicago area.
New construction could help more people afford homes because in some cases, buyers qualify for discounted mortgage rates from the builders’ preferred lenders, Hata said. She called the current situation “very discouraging for buyers because they’re getting priced out of the market.”
But pending construction has fallen under Trump. Permits to build single-family homes have plunged 9.4% over the past 12 months in October, the most recent month available, to an annual rate of 876,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Trump’s other ideas to help people buy houses
Trump has not always been against increasing housing supply.
During the 2024 campaignTrump’s team said he would create tax breaks for homebuyers, trim regulations on construction, open up federal land for housing developments and make monthly payments more manageable by cutting mortgage rates. Advisers also claimed that housing stock would open up because of Trump’s push for mass deportations of people who were in the United States illegally.
As recently as October, Trump urged builders to ramp up construction. “They’re sitting on 2 Million empty lots, A RECORD. I’m asking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get Big Homebuilders going and, by so doing, help restore the American Dream!” Trump posted on social media, referring to the government-backed lenders.
But more recently, he has been unequivocal on not wanting to pursue policies that would boost supply and lower prices.
In office, Trump has so far focused his housing policy on lobbying the Federal Reserve to cut its benchmark interest rates. He believes that would make mortgages more affordable, although critics say it could spur higher inflation. Trump announced that the two mortgage companies, which are under government conservatorship, would buy at least $200 billion in home loan securities in a bid to reduce rates.
Trump also wants Congress to ban large financial institutions from buying homes. But he has rejected suggestions for expanding rules to let buyers use 401(k) retirement accounts for down payments, telling reporters that he did not want people to take their money out of the stock market because it was doing so well.
There are signs that lawmakers in both parties see the benefits of taking steps to add houses before this year’s elections. There are efforts in the Senate and House to jump-start construction through the use of incentives to change zoning restrictions, among other policies.
One of the underlying challenges on affordability is that home prices have been generally rising faster than incomes for several years.
This makes it harder to save for down payments or upgrade to a nicer home. It also means that the places where people live increasingly double as their key financial asset, one that leaves many families looking moneyed on paper even if they are struggling with monthly bills.
There is another risk for Trump. If the economy grows this year, as he has promised, that could push up demand for houses — as well as their prices — making the affordability problem more pronounced, said Edward Pinto, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank.
Pinto said construction of single-family homes would have to rise by 50% to 100% during the next three years for average home price gains to be flat — a sign, he said, that Trump’s fears about falling home prices were probably unwarranted.
“It’s very hard to crater home prices,” Pinto said.
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics12 months agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship5 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics12 months agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics12 months agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics10 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’





