President Trump summarily dismissed 17 agency inspectors general Friday night in a move that caught official Washington by surprise.

The inspectors general were dismissed via emails from the White House Presidential Personnel Office, with no notice sent to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who have pledged bipartisan support for the watchdogs, in advance of the firings, the person said. The emails gave no substantive explanation for the dismissals, with at least one citing “changing priorities” for the move, the person added. //

I'm sure this is heading to court, and it is a good bet that the Supreme Court will eventually decide that Congress can't put that kind of leash on the president's ability to fire a presidential appointee.

This move is curious. If it isn't simply an impulsive act, the Trump White House may be using this court case to audition arguments that can be used on another Congressional "permission" case, like a challenge to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. //

NavyVet
7 hours ago
If IGs "are supposed to root out fraud, waste, abuse, and lawbreaking" they were an abysmal failure during Biden's term. Fraud, waste, abuse, and lawbreaking were rampant and they did nothing of note to stop it.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a statement. “President Trump is dismantling checks on his power and paving the way for widespread corruption.”
Oh, that's rich. After four years of the brazen fraud, waste, abuse, and lawbreaking of the Biden Crime Family, and his entire "administration", she wants to claim it's Trump? Classic!

It wasnt me NavyVet
6 hours ago
IG's need to be their own Department.
An IG can't start a prosecution. They have to go to the DOJ. The DOJ requires the FBI to also investigate.

So no real prosecutions can happen to the DOJ or the FBI.

They need their own prosecutors and able to empanel their own Grand Juries.

It's already difficult enough with Qualified Immunity and the Thin Blue Line.

Musicman
6 hours ago
The whole idea of an inspector general is constitutionally suspect. Whose job is it to investigate malfeasance by the executive branch? Congress! The reason IG’s have been created is a combination of the failure of Congress and the refusal by executive offices to provide evidence requested, sometimes even subpoenaed, by Congress. And the refusal of the DOJ to enforce Congressional subpoenas, and punish those who disobey them.

We don’t need IG’s, we need Congress to do it’s job and have the power to appoint investigators who have unfettered access to Executive Branch materials, computer systems and documents so that no Administration of either Party can stonewall investigations.

The Department of Education announced Friday that it had eliminated the Biden-created office of "book ban coordinator" and the supporting office. This office was created in June 2023 in response to many school districts removing age-inappropriate and sexually explicit books from school libraries. //

The director of the "book ban coordinator" office, a gay progressive activist, solicited complaints from activists and threatened school districts with lawsuits by the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. That all ended on Friday.

The decision to move troops to the border is superb, both in adding resources to an overstretched Border Patrol and in the symbolic message it sends. To make this deployment truly effective, it must work under a headquarters equipped to carry out the mission. Dumping yet another mission on a headquarters with a vast area of operations and a law enforcement focus doesn't seem like the best way to go. //

Laocoön of Troy
13 hours ago edited
"... Former RedStater Colonel (ret.) Mike Ford has an excellent solution to the problem. The US Army already has a logistics headquarters that is battle-tested, structured, and staffed for precisely this mission.

A Theater Sustainment Command (TSC) is an Army logistics headquarters commanded by a 2-Star General. When augmented with the appropriate subordinate commands, it is capable of providing logistical support to over 300,000 personnel. ..."

You sold me. Col Ford is on his game as always. TSC it is.

HOMAN: We're gonna take a lot of hate, we're going to be sued. Every day, numerous times.

I think you'll see the left try to control the media. They're going to show the first crying female, the first crying child. Say how inhumane we are. But, they won't talk about the 340,000 children that they've failed to take care of. They're not gonna talk about the young women who've been murdered in this country at the hands of criminal cartels.

On January 17, 1961, in this farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the establishment of a "military-industrial complex."

In a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his political farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House. Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, "old soldier" speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."

As President of the United States for two terms, Eisenhower had slowed the push for increased defense spending despite pressure to build more military equipment during the Cold War’s arms race. Nonetheless, the American military services and the defense industry had expanded a great deal in the 1950s. Eisenhower thought this growth was needed to counter the Soviet Union, but it confounded him. Though he did not say so explicitly, his standing as a military leader helped give him the credibility to stand up to the pressures of this new, powerful interest group. He eventually described it as a necessary evil.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.