Eight former inspectors general (IGs) from key U.S. agencies, including former Small Business Administration IG Hannibal “Mike” Ware, have filed a lawsuit against U.S. President Donald Trump and multiple agency heads, alleging that their abrupt terminations violated federal law and constituted an unlawful effort to undermine governmental oversight.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claims that Trump’s decision to remove them en masse via email without proper congressional notification is a clear violation of the Inspector General Act of 1978 and its subsequent amendments.
Who is Suing and Why?
The plaintiffs in the case are Robert P. Storch, Michael J. Missal, Christi A. Grimm, Cardell K. Richardson Sr., Sandra D. Bruce, Phyllis K. Fong, Larry D. Turner and Ware — all former Inspectors General overseeing major federal agencies. They are represented by attorneys Seth P. Waxman, David W. Ogden, Daniel Volchok, Jamie Yood, Hillary Chutter-Ames, Ann E. Himes, and Nicholas Werle of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.
They are suing Trump, Acting Administrator of the Small Business Administration Everett M. Woodel Jr., Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Douglas A. Collins, Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services Dorothy A. Fink, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Acting Secretary of Education Denise L. Carter, Acting Secretary of Agriculture Gary Washington, and Acting Secretary of Labor Vincent Micone.
The lawsuit alleges that the firings, carried out via a short email citing “changing priorities,” violated federal law by failing to provide the required 30-day notice to Congress and a substantive, case-specific reason for removal.
“This is a direct attack on the fundamental principle of independent oversight,” the complaint states. “By illegally removing us from our posts, the administration has sent a chilling message to all federal watchdogs: loyalty to the President outweighs accountability to the American people.”
According to the lawsuit, agency officials immediately took steps to enforce the firings by cutting off access to government email, deactivating security badges, and retrieving government-issued devices from the dismissed IGs.
“They cut off our emails, locked us out of our offices, and made it physically impossible for us to do our jobs,” the plaintiffs argue. “All without the due process required by law.”
The lawsuit seeks a court declaration that the firings were illegal, an injunction blocking their removal, and full reinstatement to their positions. They are also requesting back pay for the time they were unlawfully prevented from working.
Trump’s Justification and the Plaintiffs’ Response
In recent weeks, Trump has defended the actions, stating that such dismissals are “a very common thing to do” and “very standard, much like how we handle U.S. attorneys.” However, the lawsuit counters this assertion, emphasizing that since 1980, there has been a bipartisan consensus that it is improper for a new administration to remove inspectors general en masse.
Meanwhile, the firings have raised concerns from both sides of the aisle. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) recently sent a letter to Trump demanding an explanation, stating that “Congress was not provided the legally required 30-day notice and case-specific reasons for removal, as required by law.”
The lawsuit also highlights a letter from the Chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), which described the firings as “contrary to law and therefore a nullity.” The letter argues that IGs are statutorily protected from politically motivated dismissals to ensure their oversight remains impartial and effective.
Bipartisan Response
The mass firings have drawn significant bipartisan concern in Congress, with national legal experts noting that Trump’s actions are unprecedented, given that previous presidents have largely refrained from mass removals of inspectors general.
The plaintiffs also argue that the removals violate the 2022 amendments to the Inspector General Act, which specifically require a detailed and case-specific explanation for dismissals and prohibit immediate terminations without due process.
“The President may remove an IG,” the lawsuit states, “but only if they provide written notice to Congress at least 30 days in advance, including a substantive rationale, which has not happened in this case.”
The lawsuit further asserts that the firings have undermined ongoing federal investigations into pandemic relief fraud, defense spending, and whistleblower protections — key areas of oversight that the removed IGs were leading. The plaintiffs’ work in exposing fraud, including recovering billions in fraudulent pandemic relief funds, investigating veteran hospital misconduct, and scrutinizing Department of Defense spending is also outlined in the court documents.
“Inspectors General must be watchdogs, not lapdogs,” they state in the lawsuit, arguing that “this purge sends a dangerous message that oversight will not be tolerated in this administration.”
