Follow us on social

Shutterstock_270267647-scaled

Congress needs to be more forceful in its response to Trump's inspector general purges

Congress's work should include continuing the investigations the IGs were not able to complete, one of many overdue steps for it to reassert itself as a coequal branch in foreign policy.

Analysis | Washington Politics

This weekend, the New York Times released a blockbuster investigation showing how defense contractor Raytheon successfully persuaded the Trump administration to continue arming Saudi Arabia in the war in Yemen, even as civilian casualties increased and it became clearer that supporting the war further undermined the U.S.’s interests in the region.

The Times’s reporting raises a number of questions that Congress should investigate, including whether the State Department has been improperly sidelined from national security decision-making, whether advancing arms sales has undermined other national security interests, and whether former State Department officials’ ability to become influence-peddlers for arms dealers undermined the diplomatic mission of the department.

It now appears that State Department Inspector General Steve Linick’s office was conducting a similar investigation into the president’s declaration of a national emergency to support Saudi arms sales. But while the Times investigation is likely to garner the reporters well-deserved awards, Linick seems to have been rewarded by the president firing him last Friday night due to a “loss of confidence.” It quickly became clear his removal was at the request of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

It also seems that the administration was unhappy with Linick’s probe into whistleblower allegations that Pompeo had misused government resources by asking staff to perform personal tasks for him and his wife, including walking their dog and making restaurant reservations.

For those unfamiliar with inspectors general (IGs), they are independent federal watchdogs who conduct investigations into fraud and abuse, and report their findings to both to the executive branch and to Congress. Congress has made clear from the beginning that exposing embarrassing actions by the executive branch would not be sufficient justification for removal.

If Linick was removed in retaliation for the Saudi arms sales investigation, which had been initiated at the request of House Foreign Affairs committee Chair Eliot Engel, it’s a devastating strike at Congress’s core constitutional duties to conduct oversight as a co-equal branch of government. It also undermines the independence of inspectors general at a moment when government misconduct is reaching pandemic proportions.

The president can remove an IG, but over the years Congress has increasingly restricted the conditions under which he can do so, including requiring that the president provide Congress with his reasoning. In this case, a number of congressional leaders have accurately pointed out that “loss of confidence” isn’t an appropriate justification.

Congress must enact lasting reforms that make it undeniably clear that inspectors general can only be removed for cause. But in the interim, Congress needs to hold this administration accountable.

This is not to say it isn’t sometimes necessary to remove inspectors general. But removal without justification isn’t acceptable. Congress has demonstrated several models of how to properly hold failed watchdogs accountable. A probe from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee resulted in the resignation of an acting inspector general who had become too cozy with the agency he was overseeing and a House Science committee investigation into to a Commerce IG who abused his position similarly persuaded him to resign.

Yet now, Congress is reaping what they sow in insufficient responses to recent firings. The removal of Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, should have led to a strong bipartisan rebuke, including congressional investigations and hearings about that decision. While there was a bipartisan letter asking the president to provide more of an explanation for that firing, there were no consequences when the president failed to respond. It’s clear that this letter wasn’t enough to warrant a response, let alone deter the president from removing principal deputy defense inspector general Glenn Fine, acting Transportation inspector general Mitch Behm, or of course, Linick.

The House Foreign Affairs committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are taking the right step now by opening an investigation into the removal. But this should only be the beginning. Their work should include continuing the investigations the IGs were not able to complete, one of many overdue steps for Congress to reassert itself as a coequal branch in foreign policy.

They also need to get the attention of the executive branch. The executive branch’s move to thwart an investigation into arms sales is a four alarm fire that should not be ignored, and those committees should use their power to halt weapons sales until the administration provides them with the information and documents they need to do their work. These events also make a compelling case for Congress to strengthen its own oversight power under the Arms Export Control Act. It’s bad enough that the arms industry is jeopardizing the health and safety of their workers to further arms sales abroad. The Secretary of State putting the checks and balances of our Constitution at risk to line the pockets of the defense industry is inexcusable.

Oversight and accountability are under attack right now. Congress needs to step up to defend its own oversight power and inspectors general, who are one of the most powerful tools Congress has to hold this administration and future ones accountable.

Photo credit: lunamarina/shutterstock.com
Analysis | Washington Politics
Where are Trump's possible VPs on foreign policy?

Aaron of LA Photography, lev radin, and Allssandro Pietri via shutterstock.com

Where are Trump's possible VPs on foreign policy?

Washington Politics

Donald Trump will soon be selecting a running mate for the general election, and his choices have reportedly narrowed to Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

All three have been auditioning for the role, and one of them will presumably be selected before the Republican convention next week. Whoever gets the nod has a decent chance of being elected the next vice president and in that role he will have some influence in shaping a second Trump administration. So it is worth reviewing the foreign policy views of Trump’s possible picks to see what the selection can tell us about the direction Trump will take if he wins this November.

keep readingShow less
Shutterstock_624917975-scaled-e1644615001666
Russian President Boris Yeltsin and U.S. President Bill Clinton shake hands at a news conference in the East Room of the White House, Washington DC., September 28Th, 1994. (mark reinstein / Shutterstock.com).
Russian President Boris Yeltsin and U.S. President Bill Clinton shake hands at a news conference in the East Room of the White House, Washington DC., September 28Th, 1994. (mark reinstein / Shutterstock.com).

Declassified docs: US knew Russia felt 'snookered' by NATO

QiOSK

This week at the NATO summit in Washington, alliance leaders are expected to sign a joint communique that declares that Ukraine is on an “irreversible” path to joining the alliance.

This decision is likely to be celebrated as a big step forward and a reflection of Western unity behind Ukraine, but a series of newly declassified documents show that the U.S. has known all along that NATO expansion over the last 30 years has posed a threat to Russia, and may have been a critical plank in Moscow's aggressive policies over that time, culminating in the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

keep readingShow less
Poll: Middle income Global South really likes China

Chinatown Street Market during Chinese New Year in Singapore. (Derek Teo/Shutterstock)

Poll: Middle income Global South really likes China

QiOSK

Middle-income countries of the Global South hold significantly more favorable views of China and its influence than those held by high-income countries of North America, Europe, and Northeast Asia, according to newly released findings of a poll of 34 countries released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.

The survey, the latest in an annual series by the Pew Global Attitudes project, found that a median of 56% of respondents in 17 middle-income nations across Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia held an overall “positive” view of China.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest