Title: The Firing of Inspectors General: A Troubling Trend in U.S. Politics
Have you ever heard of Gerald Walpin? If not, you’re not alone. Walpin, who served as an inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, was thrust into the spotlight back in 2009 when he was abruptly fired by then-President Barack Obama. This dismissal, which raised eyebrows and sparked investigations, is now part of a larger narrative about the troubling trend of political interference in the role of inspectors general—a trend that has only intensified in recent years.
Walpin’s story began when he started investigating potential misconduct involving Kevin Johnson, the former mayor of Sacramento and a close ally of Obama. His findings didn’t sit well with the administration, leading to his controversial removal. At the time, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley took a stand against Walpin’s firing, emphasizing the importance of inspectors general in rooting out waste and fraud in government agencies. Unfortunately, Walpin never regained his position, and his case serves as a cautionary tale about the fragility of these watchdog roles.
Fast forward to the Trump administration, where the situation escalated dramatically. Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump dismissed 17 inspectors general from major agencies, including the Departments of Defense and State. This mass firing drew significant media attention, overshadowing Walpin’s earlier dismissal. Grassley, once again, voiced his concerns, highlighting that inspectors general are meant to operate free from political pressure and should only be removed for just cause, with proper notice to Congress—a standard that was clearly not upheld in either case.
The implications of these firings extend beyond individual cases. They represent a worrying trend of political maneuvering that undermines the integrity of oversight mechanisms in government. Inspectors general are crucial for maintaining accountability, and their removal can set a dangerous precedent. As we’ve seen, this pattern of behavior can lead to a cycle of retaliation and abuse of power, where each administration feels justified in taking similar actions against their predecessors.
This cycle of political retribution isn’t limited to inspectors general. It also extends to the controversial use of presidential pardons. For instance, Trump’s pardons for individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot were met with outrage, echoing the backlash against Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich nearly 25 years earlier. The evolution of these actions—from a relatively mild scandal to a series of high-profile pardons that seem to disregard the rule of law—illustrates how quickly norms can erode in the political landscape.
Moreover, the tit-for-tat removal of security clearances between Biden and Trump raises further concerns. Biden’s decision to revoke Trump’s security clearance was unprecedented, and Trump’s subsequent retaliation against Biden only deepens the divide. What was once an unthinkable action has now become a potential tool for future administrations, further entrenching a culture of political vendetta.
The consequences of these actions can be far-reaching. For instance, Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, which aimed to protect undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, has faced ongoing legal challenges. Critics argue that Obama overstepped his authority, and the fallout from this decision has allowed opponents to frame immigration policy as a key issue in subsequent elections.
As we look to the future, it’s clear that both parties must take responsibility for their actions. The current political climate is characterized by a dangerous game of one-upmanship, where each side justifies its actions based on the misdeeds of the other. This cycle of retaliation not only erodes trust in government institutions but also risks leading us down a path of authoritarianism.
In conclusion, the story of Gerald Walpin and the subsequent firings of inspectors general serve as a stark reminder of the importance of accountability in government. As citizens, we must demand that our leaders uphold the principles of transparency and integrity, regardless of political affiliation. If we fail to hold ourselves and our leaders accountable, we may find ourselves facing a future where the rule of law is merely a suggestion, rather than a cornerstone of our democracy.
Cliff Smith, a lawyer and former congressional staffer, emphasizes that both sides need to reflect on their actions and the precedents they set. The stakes are high, and the time for accountability is now.
