DC dispatch: a veteran Inspector General stands up for the rule of law, and is escorted from her office Dispatches
Photo credit: Stephanie Sundier
DC dispatch: a veteran Inspector General stands up for the rule of law, and is escorted from her office

Sharon Basch is a 3L at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law filing occasional dispatches from Washington DC ths semester. 

From the moment Donald Trump took office on January 20, one of his key goals has been to reduce the size of the US federal government, a vision he articulated frequently during his campaign. Once in office, this translated into the proposed dismantling of agencies, cuts to key services, and the creation of what was called a “drain the swamp” agenda. Central to this initiative has been his desire to replace civil servants with a more ideologically aligned, politically loyal workforce.

Following a spate of firings of at least 17 inspectors general in a “midnight massacre” last Friday, one, USDA’s Inspector General Phyllis Fong, refused to leave her post. She was escorted out of her office Wednesday, after serving 22 years. As USDA Inspector General, Fong was the senior official responsible for audits, investigations, and other oversight activities relating to USDA’s programs and operations.

Trump’s firing of these inspectors general breaks the law. 5 USC Ch. 4 notes in Section 403 that:

An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.

According to AP News reporting, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) acknowledged the illegality of the dismissals over the weekend but shrugged it off. It appears that Trump too, will be able to shrug the illegality of his actions off as well, following the July ruling granting Presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts.

If Trump is insulated from the threat of the law, why then does it matter that Phyllis Fong rejected her firing? Fong’s actions are a signal – resisting illegal action is crucial to maintaining the rule of law. If Trump’s goal is to replace civil servants with a more ideologically aligned, politically loyal workforce, then standing against illegal firings is a way to resist the politicization of federal agencies and protect the merit-based civil service system. Federal employees have a responsibility to protect the integrity of their institutions and the rule of law by resisting illegal actions, even if there are potential personal or political repercussions. It underscores the crucial role of civil servants in safeguarding democratic principles and preventing the erosion of checks and balances within the government.

While the legal ramifications for the president’s actions may be blunted by claims of immunity, the significance of Phyllis Fong’s refusal to resign lies in its symbolic power and its defense of the rule of law. Her resistance, and that of other civil servants who prioritize their oath of office over political expediency, serves as a crucial bulwark against the potential erosion of governmental checks and balances. It underscores the vital role of a non-political civil service in protecting democratic principles and ensuring accountability, reminding us that even when legal recourse is limited, the ethical stand of individuals dedicated to public service remains a powerful instrument for upholding the integrity of government institutions. Ultimately, the decision of whether to prioritize loyalty to law or loyalty to power rests with each individual, and the consequences of those choices will shape the future of governance.