Federal judge declines to reinstate eight inspectors general fired by Trump

A federal judge on Wednesday refused to reinstate eight former inspectors general who sued after the Trump administration fired them with little warning. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington said that while President Donald Trump likely violated the removal law governing nonpartisan watchdogs, the firings didn’t cause irreparable harm to justify reinstating the watchdogs before the lawsuit is resolved.

The eight plaintiffs were among 17 inspectors general who were fired by Trump on Jan. 24. Each received identical two-sentence emails from the White House attributing their removal to unspecified “changing priorities.” The mass firings targeted all but two of the cabinet agencies’ inspectors general.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the firings violated the Inspector General Act’s requirement that Congress be given 30 days’ notice and that there must be a substantive, case-specific rationale for removing an IG. They contended the White House failed to provide both the mandatory timing and a justificatory explanation. Government attorneys countered that the president can remove IGs without cause and does not have to wait a 30-day period after notifying Congress.

Reyes, while signaling that the removals likely breached the statutory framework for removing inspectors general, concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown the kind of irreparable harm that would warrant immediate reinstatement prior to the resolution of the case. She noted that even if the eight were reinstated, the administration could simply issue fresh notice to Congress and remove them again 30 days later, potentially eroding any immediate relief.

The ruling leaves the eight IGs in a state of legal limbo as the broader dispute over the legality and process of their removals proceeds. The decision does not address the merits of the plaintiffs’ broader claims about unlawful dismissal, but it underscores the tension between executive prerogative and statutory protections designed to preserve the independence of inspectors general.

The Jan. 24 firings affected most of the cabinet agencies’ watchdogs, a move that drew sharp criticism from lawmakers and oversight groups who warned it could weaken lava of accountability in federal agencies. The case now proceeds, with the plaintiffs seeking redress and the government maintaining that presidential removal authority is broad and flexible. In the meantime, the fate of the eight plaintiffs—and the broader legal questions about IG tenure—remains unsettled as the litigation unfolds.