17 inspectors general fired in a single night
On January 24, 2025, the White House sent emails to at least 17 federal inspectors general telling them they were terminated immediately. No 30-day notice to Congress. No written reasons. Just “changing priorities.” The inspectors general of the Department of Defense, State Department, Veterans Affairs, and Housing and Urban Development were all gone before sunrise. Federal law requires the president to notify Congress 30 days before removing an inspector general and to provide detailed, case-specific reasons. Trump did neither. In September 2025, federal Judge Ana C. Reyes ruled the firings were unlawful but declined to reinstate the watchdogs, reasoning the president could simply re-fire them after providing proper notice.
By October 2025, the administration fired another inspector general, this time with the 30-day notice but equally thin reasoning.
”President Trump violated the IGA. That much is obvious.”
Judge Ana C. Reyes, ruling on the inspector general firings, September 2025Inspectors general are the internal watchdogs who audit federal spending and report to Congress. Without them, there is no independent check on whether agencies are following the law or spending taxpayer money as Congress intended. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that removing these watchdogs has already delayed fraud investigations.
Who This Affects
Senior auditor, VA Office of Inspector General
A senior auditor in the VA Office of Inspector General spent 11 years investigating waste and fraud. His team was two weeks from publishing findings on $47 million in fraudulent contractor billing at a Midwest VA hospital when the IG was fired on January 24, 2025. The new acting IG shelved the investigation. The auditor was reassigned to a desk job with no caseload and resigned in April. The contractor is still billing the VA. The $47 million was never recovered. Across the federal government, IG offices lost 20% to 30% of their staff. The investigations those auditors were conducting simply stopped.
Based on documented cases and public data.
The Justice Department is prosecuting the president’s political enemies
The Department of Justice is supposed to operate independently from the White House. That norm, established after Watergate, has been the foundation of equal justice under law for 50 years. It is breaking down. The administration has opened investigations and brought charges against people who investigated or publicly criticized the president.
| Target | Role | What happened |
|---|---|---|
| James Comey | Former FBI Director who investigated Russian election interference | Indicted October 2025 over an Instagram post; first indictment dismissed due to unlawful appointment of prosecutor; re-indicted April 2026 |
| Letitia James | NY Attorney General who won civil fraud case against Trump Organization | Mortgage fraud investigation opened by DOJ; no public evidence of federal crime |
| Jerome Powell | Federal Reserve Chair who resisted White House pressure on interest rates | Criminal investigation opened January 2026; dropped April 2026 |
| Gen. John Kelly | Former White House Chief of Staff who publicly criticized Trump | Pentagon announced misconduct review November 2025; censure and retirement grade proceeding opened January 2026 |
| Southern Poverty Law Center | Civil rights organization that tracks hate groups | Indicted April 2026 on wire fraud and money laundering charges tied to paying confidential informants who infiltrate extremist groups |
Source: Brennan Center, Protect Democracy retaliatory action tracker.
Protect Democracy →The International Bar Association warned in early 2026 that the pattern amounts to “weaponisation” of the Justice Department. More than 100 career prosecutors have left the DOJ, with many citing political interference for refusing orders they considered unethical. Protect Democracy maintains a tracker of retaliatory arrests, prosecutions, and investigations. The list continues to grow.
Court orders are being ignored
The Constitution gives federal courts the power to check the executive branch through judicial review. When a court issues an order, the government must comply. That principle is being tested in ways not seen since the Civil Rights era.
The Abrego Garcia case
- On March 12, 2025, DHS agents arrested Kilmar Abrego Garcia outside a Baltimore IKEA. He had legal permission to remain in the United States under a court order protecting him from deportation to El Salvador, where he faced threats to his life.
- The administration deported him to El Salvador anyway, into a mega-prison run by the Salvadoran government.
- On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the government must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return.
- The administration argued the ruling did not actually require them to bring him back.
- Federal Judge Xinis threatened contempt proceedings, accusing the DOJ of “willful and intentional noncompliance.”
- Abrego Garcia was eventually returned to the U.S. on June 6, 2025, nearly three months after the Supreme Court order.
- Once home, the DOJ indicted him on federal charges — charges his lawyers argue are vindictive prosecution for winning the court case.
The federal funding freeze
On January 31, 2025, the administration froze federal funding across agencies. On February 10, U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered immediate restoration of the funds, writing the freeze was “likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country.” Officials were found to have violated the plain language of the order.
Stripping courts of enforcement power
The House version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” included Section 70302, which would have stripped federal courts of the power to enforce contempt citations against the government for violating injunctions — unless the plaintiff posted a financial bond. The Senate parliamentarian ruled the provision violated the Byrd rule and it was stripped from the Senate version. But the fact that it passed the House at all tells you where this is headed.
A government that treats court orders as optional is not a government bound by law. It is a government bound only by its own willingness to comply.
Federal funding is being weaponized against states
The administration has turned federal funding into a tool of political punishment. States that resist administration policies on immigration or elections see their funding frozen or denied. In early January 2026, the administration froze billions of dollars in child care and other essential services to five states with Democratic governors. A district court blocked the freeze quickly, but the disruption to programs serving families had already occurred. The most brazen example is Colorado. After the state refused to release Tina Peters from prison (a former county clerk convicted of breaching election equipment) the president vowed to punish the state. What followed:
- Federal disaster funding denied for wildfires and flooding in rural Colorado
- Federal project funding withheld from communities across the state
- A federal judge found the administration had threatened Colorado funding as “punishment” over Peters The fires and floods hit Rio Blanco, La Plata, Archuleta, and Mineral counties. All but one of those counties voted for Trump in 2024. The people being punished are his own voters. The administration also demanded detailed information on nearly all federal funding going to 14 states and Washington, D.C., every one of which voted against the president. The Harvard Law Review analyzed these actions as politically discriminatory funding cuts that may violate the First Amendment and the Spending Clause.
Emergency powers have become a routine governing tool
The National Emergencies Act was designed for genuine crises: natural disasters, foreign threats, sudden economic shocks. It was not designed as a way to bypass Congress on domestic policy. Since January 2025, the president has declared at least 10 national emergencies — more than any modern president in a comparable period. These include:
| Emergency declared | What it enabled |
|---|---|
| National Energy Emergency (January 2025) | Bypassed environmental review for drilling permits; extended for another year in January 2026 |
| Immigration "invasion" (January 2025) | Deployed military for domestic immigration enforcement |
| Foreign drug cartels (2025) | Froze assets and imposed sanctions outside normal legal channels |
| Trade emergency (2025) | Invoked IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional approval |
No recent president has invoked emergency powers this frequently or across this broad a range of issues. Source: Brennan Center.
Brennan Center →The Brennan Center has documented that no recent president has invoked emergency powers this frequently, across this broad a range of issues, or as a routine tool for advancing domestic policy goals. The structural problem: if Congress wants to terminate an emergency declaration, it needs a veto-proof supermajority in both chambers. A simple majority is not enough. The National Emergencies Act, written in 1976, assumed presidents would use the power sparingly. That assumption no longer holds.
The Iran strikes happened without congressional authorization
On February 28, 2026, the United States began military strikes against Iran. The administration notified Congress on March 2, starting the 60-day clock under the War Powers Resolution. That clock ran out on May 1. Rather than seeking congressional authorization, the president told Congress the clock had stopped because he ordered a ceasefire on April 7, 2026. Members of Congress from both parties disagreed, noting that both sides continued enforcing naval blockades through military force and that a ceasefire does not stop the War Powers clock. The president told reporters he considers seeking congressional authorization “unconstitutional” — a claim that contradicts the text of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to declare war. As of this writing, Congress has not authorized military action against Iran. No vote has been held. The War Powers Resolution is clear: without authorization, the president must withdraw forces within 60 days. That deadline has passed. Read the full Iran timeline on our Foreign Policy hub.
Senate War Powers Vote -- May 19, 2026
Needs 60 votes to overcome filibuster. The resolution passed a procedural vote but faces a veto threat. Four Republicans -- Collins, Murkowski, Paul, and Lee -- voted yes.
The pattern
Remove the people who enforce limits, then act as if the limits do not exist. Fire the inspectors general, and nobody inside the government watches for abuse. Prosecute the president’s critics, and everyone else gets the message. Ignore court orders, and no legal remedy is left. Condition federal funding on loyalty, and states lose independence. Start wars without authorization, and the last constitutional check disappears. Each of these developments, on its own, is serious. Together, they describe an executive branch that is systematically removing the guardrails designed to prevent the concentration of power.
If the Guardrails Hold
Courts continue issuing orders and the government complies, restoring the precedent that no one is above the law. Congress restores inspector general positions and funds independent oversight. The War Powers Resolution is enforced, and future presidents cannot start wars alone.
If Compliance Becomes Optional
Court orders become suggestions the executive branch follows when convenient. No internal watchdogs remain to catch fraud, waste, or abuse of power. Emergency declarations replace legislation as the primary governing tool, and Congress becomes ceremonial.
Protect yourself right now
- Learn the specific cases. The details matter. When you call or write your representatives, citing specific court orders, specific firings, and specific cases is more effective than general alarm. Bookmark Protect Democracy’s tracker and the Brennan Center’s emergency powers tracker.
- Know who your inspector general is. Every major federal agency has one. If yours has been fired or replaced, your state’s congressional delegation should hear about it.
- Check whether your state is being targeted. The CBPP tracker and States United track funding freezes and politically motivated funding actions.
Last updated June 3, 2026