USDA Inspector General Who Refused to Leave Escorted from Office by Security
34 comments
·February 1, 2025cocacola1
> Phyllis Fong was heading up an investigation into Elon Musk's Neuralink.
> Last Friday, President Donald Trump purged several agencies of their inspectors general, demanding that at least 17 people in the role immediately turn in their work laptops and ID badges. One of those IGs, Phyllis Fong at the US Department of Agriculture, decided not to leave, believing the order to be illegal. According to a report from Reuters, she was escorted from the building today by security.
Never mind a long four years, it’s been a long two weeks. Unfortunately, the law is too slow dealing with things like this. And even if it was ruled illegal, who’s going to enforce it. The White House?
distortionfield
> who’s going to enforce it?
This is the real danger of where we’re at right now. We are currently at a point where the President has a stacked Supreme Court that had already showed they’re willing to take his side almost no matter what. There is now effectively no check against the executive branch because of that. Papers are already running stories about how Congress is just letting him loose, with these Inspectors General firings as a prime example of how Congress has just thrown their hands up without even a fight.
UniverseHacker
We are on the brink of a fascist dictatorship and hardly anyone is noticing or taking it seriously.
anon84873628
Really? It seemed to me that people were shouting it from the rooftops prior to the election.
And then the Democrats were accused of only taking about the threat to Democracy instead of the price of eggs.
b59831
[dead]
JumpCrisscross
> with these Inspectors General firings as a prime example of how Congress has just thrown their hands up without even a fight
From what I can tell, the IGs do serve at the pleasure of the President. The only thing he didn’t do is notify the Congress. Is that true?
phonon
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11546
"The removal procedure for presidentially appointed IGs is found in Title 5, Section 403(b), which reads in part 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 substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress (including the appropriate congressional committees), not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal."
null
nrds
Yes. The statute literally leads with "The president may remove the Inspectors General" (quoting/closely paraphrasing from memory). The notification requirement is in addition to this but there's no language which says that the removal power is conditioned on obeying the notification requirement. So Trump legally removed the IGs, and then as a side-effect broke the law by failing to notify Congress.
There's a problem with how the law is written though... It supposedly required Trump to notify Congress before he was even President, but its requirements also only apply to the President. Arguably the law was impossible to follow as written, and I gather that's not even the strongest constitutional problem with the law as written. What we have here is a failure of Congress, and Trump exploiting it.
bmitc
The law says that he has to notify Congress with a good reason for the dismissal.
ck2
Here's a better question:
Why with this kind of setup, absolutely no-one to stop them, would they step aside in 1450 days if voters have their say?
Past 10 days have been an absolute railroad of undoing past 100 years.
Imagine 1000 days from now the chaos and nobody can change anything for any reason.
The word tyranny seems to fit and I wouldn't have used that with Bush/Cheney or even Reagan.
distortionfield
He didn’t step away willingly the first time, I have zero reason to believe he would step away willingly the second time, especially after he’s spent so much time undoing all the checks and balances that pushed him out that first time.
JumpCrisscross
> even if it was ruled illegal, who’s going to enforce it
The court that ruled it such. She would not only be entitled to back pay, anything her replacement does wouldn’t have legal force. That means anything they do can be challenged by anyone who doesn’t like it.
We’re seeing the limits of Congressional checks on the executive. But we still have an independent judiciary. (If that collapses it will be a good time to be a billionaire in America.) The judiciary’s advantage is its patient; it can exact consequences after 2028 in a way the executive and even the Congress cannot.
distortionfield
We do not have an independent judiciary, they have already shown their allegiance to the President.
clessg
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the courts essentially powerless to enforce? If memory serves, the judicial branch merely interprets the law and Constitution, but they lack an enforcement mechanism - it is up to the Executive Branch (the president) to administer and enforce the law. If they decide they don't feel like listening to the courts, it's unclear anybody could actually do anything. (Other than impeachment perhaps? But of course that isn't going to happen anytime soon.)
Besides, even if they did have the power to enforce the law, I can't say I exactly trust the Supreme Court to even try reining in Trump (except in minor ways) based on their recent track record. But who knows.
JumpCrisscross
> it's unclear anybody could actually do anything
Sure, if we get down to mechanics like that, the courts require someone else to enforce. But at that mechanistic level, so does the President. He isn’t personally escorting her out of the office.
cogman10
Congress actually has it's own (small) police force, the sergeant at arms.
It's a power they basically never use, but they can technically arrest someone for not complying with a congressional order/subpoena.
But then if they did decide to arrest Trump or others for compliance that'd pit the Sargent at arms directly against the secret services.
ainiriand
Eh... When was not a good time to be a billionaire in USA? You mean like now? Is it not a good time now?
INTPenis
I love the use of the word purge here, makes me think of Stalin.
catigula
That's why the word was used -- that's the point.
Language frequently works this way, to manipulate your feelings.
wslh
People should be very careful with words and comparisons. Stalin's purges resulted in assassinations numbering in the millions. Comparing Trump to Stalin is an exaggeration, even considering Trump’s policies that warrant criticism.
null
Already discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42902355