Intelligence watchdog departures raise red flags in Congress

WASHINGTON — The unusual disclosures from two inspectors general at U.S. spy agencies that they are leaving their posts before Inauguration Day are raising concerns among some lawmakers about the independence that national security watchdogs will have in Donald Trump’s second term.

Thomas Monheim, the IG at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is resigning. Robin Ashton, the CIA IG, is retiring. While both of their departure dates are set before Trump is sworn in, neither official has publicly cited Trump’s arrival to explain the decision.

Both Monheim and Ashton were nominated by President Joe Biden. Their departures were disclosed earlier this week by the Project on Government Oversight and were subsequently confirmed by CQ Roll Call.

At the same time, the National Security Agency’s inspector general office is being run by the deputy IG, Kevin Gerrity, while the nomination of Kristi Zuleika Lane Scott to be the permanent IG at that agency has been stuck in the Senate since July.

Robert Storch, the Pentagon’s inspector general, has made no announcement of any change in his career plans.

“IGs are an important part of the oversight system in government, whether Democrats are in control or Republicans are in control, and they are independent,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a member of the Armed Services Committee, which oversees military intelligence programs. “For our IGs to feel under threat from an incoming president undermines the whole of oversight and is not good for anyone.”

Democrats’ antennae are up

The federal government’s 74 inspectors general conduct audits and criminal investigations to ensure appropriations are not misspent and to root out fraud. They report not just to their agency directors but also to Congress. Their work is, by all accounts, essential. They are valued, in particular, for their independence and nonpartisanship.

Because of the importance of IG autonomy, the positions normally do not change hands between presidential administrations. And the Defense Department and intelligence agency IGs have no fixed terms of service.

“Historically, for more than 40 years, because of their nonpartisan, independent status, inspectors general have remained in office during transitions to new presidential administrations,” said Mollie Halpern, a spokesperson for the Defense Department IG. “This is unlike political appointees.”

That is why this week’s unusually timed IG departures at the intelligence agencies are starting to set off alarm bells, especially among Democrats who oversee U.S. national security departments and agencies.

The concerns are partly about who Trump might pick to fill the IG vacancies, due to what Democrats say is Trump’s predilection for nominating people distinguished more by their loyalty to him than their professional qualifications.

Fueling the concern is Trump’s track record in his first term. He fired or sidelined five IGs in short order in 2020. The moves were widely interpreted as reprisals against officials who had delivered messages Trump did not like. Trump sometimes said things that appeared to confirm those suspicions, and at other times offered other explanations.

The IGs who just announced they are leaving soon did not cite Trump’s upcoming inauguration in their statements about their departures. But the timing of the resignations is sparking concerns in some quarters that the resignations may in fact be related to Trump’s imminent return to power and raises the possibility that a chilling effect is taking hold in the audit community.

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats and who serves on the Intelligence and Armed Services committees, said he is concerned about what comes next.

“The IGs play a crucial role, and we need those positions filled,” King said. “The fact that two are leaving is unsettling.”

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said the inspector general office in each major spy agency performs a “critical” function.

“And it needs to maintain its independence,” Warner said. “So many of my colleagues appreciate that. I hope the new administration appreciates that.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., another Intelligence Committee member, said IGs being above the political fray “is absolutely crucial to having the transparency and accountability the founding fathers envisioned.” He added: “Elected officials always give big speeches about this. Now here’s a chance to show how strongly they feel.”

Republicans are not publicly expressing similar worries.

Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, a member of the Intelligence Committee and the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said of the departing IGs: “If they don’t want to work for Trump, they shouldn’t work for Trump. So it’s a deal for both sides. We will find people who will fill these jobs and do it well, and I have absolutely no concerns about that at all.”

Trump’s 2020 purge

Trump is not the first president to fire, move to a new position or overlook for promotion a senior official in an inspector general office.

But Trump took such actions in his first term at a clip that was unusual in recent presidential history, a Congressional Research Service report updated this year showed. The law (PL 95-452) creating inspectors general was enacted in 1978.

Presidents are allowed to fire inspectors general at will, but a president must give Congress 30 days notice and explain the decision in writing.

Trump fired two IGs and effectively sidelined three others in the span of a few weeks in 2020, sparking concerns he was targeting independent oversight of his administration.

Democrats complained then that the IGs were cashiered because they were working on or had completed audits that cast the Trump administration in an unfavorable light. Trump insisted each time that this was not the case — even though he also sometimes said things that bolstered his critics’ arguments.

Specifically, Trump fired the intelligence community IG, Michael Atkinson, after he transmitted to Congress the whistleblower complaint about Trump’s alleged coercion of Ukraine’s president for dirt on Biden — the genesis of Trump’s first impeachment.

Trump also fired Steve Linick, the State Department IG, as Linick was investigating then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for alleged improprieties.

Three other officials who were in acting IG roles in 2020 were passed over for promotions or otherwise sidelined.

These included Glenn Fine, who was replaced as acting Pentagon IG, a move that also caused Fine to have to step down from his role as head of the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee.

Trump’s explanations of his decisions in these cases varied.

In terminating Linick and Atkinson, Trump said they were Obama appointees, even though IGs have traditionally been viewed as nonpartisan.

In some cases, Trump stopped just short of admitting that cashiering an IG official was an act of reprisal, though he typically would simultaneously cast the decision as a matter of confidence in that person’s competence.

Trump said, for instance, that Atkinson did a “terrible job” but also spoke of Atkinson’s “terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report.”

At the time, Atkinson said he believed his dismissal was an act of retaliation.

“It is hard not to think that the President’s loss of confidence in me derives from my having faithfully discharged my legal obligations as an independent and impartial Inspector General,” Atkinson said in an April 2020 statement.

“There are several examples of Presidents removing IGs,” the CRS report said. “A common theme” in those cases, it said, is “concern from Congress that removals have the potential to undermine the actual and perceived independence of IGs. Replacing an acting IG with another official is another personnel action that Congress has determined raises similar independence concerns to the removal of a confirmed IG.”

Watchdogs or ‘lapdogs’?

Ashton, who has been the CIA IG for the last three and a half years, said in a statement that she is retiring “at the end of this year” after 38 years of public service.

“I have every confidence that the exceptional work of the Office of the Inspector General will continue to have a positive impact on behalf of the American people,” Ashton wrote.

Monheim, the IG for the director of national intelligence, issued a statement of his own indicating he is resigning effective Jan. 3, 2025.

“My decision to retire from government service was mine alone,” he said.

“I am incredibly proud of the IC IG team’s tireless and selfless efforts to conduct independent, objective, and nonpartisan oversight of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and across the Intelligence Community (IC),” Monheim wrote.

Irvin McCullough, a former Senate aide who consults for the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower advocacy group, said intelligence agencies’ IGs have the security clearances and statutory authorities to investigate sensitive programs, and it is critically important that the right person get those jobs.

“Given these vacancies, the question is whether Trump will appoint IGs who will fight against waste, fraud and abuse in secret programs while defending the whistleblowers who risk their careers to expose wrongdoing — or whether he’ll choose lapdogs over watchdogs,” McCullough said. “I expect we’ll find out fairly soon.”