One of the most solid indications that President Donald Trump wants to oversee a near dictatorship is the suppression of all dissent in the federal government and its place insistence on a loyalty pledge to the president himself, not the Constitution, as would otherwise be required. From the very top to various levels below, there is no level of criticism too small, nor report too obvious, to avoid one’s fate if one is critical of the president’s actions. Now, Trump seeks to dismantle the U.S.A.I.D. Agency and, as one might expect, the Inspector General for USAID had a bit to say in his report on the matter, stuff that was as obvious as suggesting that they not tear the agency apart. Now Trump has fired the I.G. for that said obvious report and – typically – the termination was done illegally, without notice to Congress.
It gets a bit old seeing him violate laws and this is especially true in the cases where it is painfully easy to follow the law – he just doesn’t want to. In particular, the president is supposed to notify Congress 30 days before terminating any I.G. – something that could have easily been done here. According to CNN’s report:
Paul Martin was informed by an email from the deputy director of the Office of Presidential Personnel on Tuesday evening that his position as inspector general of USAID was “terminated, effective immediately.”
A spokesperson for the USAID Office of Inspector General confirmed Martin’s termination and said no reason was given for his ouster. The administration is required under the law to provide 30 days’ notice to Congress before firing an inspector general and provide case-specific reasons for getting rid of watchdogs.
The last word in the report is key, “watchdogs.” As most know, the Inspectors General all police their departments, often with offices outside the official agency or department buildings. They typically do not socialize or meet with others in the department outside the OIG branch. Thus it is that if a president decides to terminate one, there is a near presumption that it’s because that particular I.G. had some “insights” that will cast the administration in an unfavorable light. The tension is built into the system for a reason, it is designed to be there, and there is a reason that Congress is to be notified. Congress, not the I.G.s, is the ultimate check on the president.
Now, obviously, Congress isn’t going to impeach Trump over terminating USAID. But the move dismantling the agency may upset even some Republicans who might oppose losing such influence (Even if at the price of aid) across the globe. It allows China to step into the void. So if Republicans have an issue with the way Trump is going about dismantling USAID, they can help address the situation with Democrats in the only way Congress can really dictate anything to the president, controlling the money, making spending it more specific.
Of course, it’s all meaningless with respect to Paul Martin. Whether he is paid for another 30 days or not (He will be), he is terminated and won’t be welcome back to the office, even if the law provides him a 30 day notice period. No, Martin’s termination isn’t about USAID so much as it’s about the Defense Department, the State Department, and especially the Justice Department. It is about them because they, too – will have new I.G.s and Trump needs some examples to which he can point if any of these new loyalists start to get antsy once reports begin to come in. Lest they believe they can make an obvious negative finding and have the administration ignore it due to its obviousness – the administration can point to Martin. (Do not expect it to be an issue with the loyalists coming in but the termination serves as an example anyway.)
Even in a situation as obvious as a report critical of dismantling the damned agency below, the I.G. was fired. Says a lot. Going forward, what’s stunning is how little really need be said anymore.
God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected] and on X at @JasonMiciak and now on the fantastic Bluesky.
