The Trump administration's attacks on oversight of executive power

Summary

Consider This from NPR: The Trump Administration's Attacks on Oversight of Executive Power

Release Date: March 12, 2025

In this episode of NPR's "Consider This," host Ailsa Chang delves into the Trump administration's systematic efforts to undermine and eliminate independent oversight mechanisms within the federal government. Focusing on the broader implications for executive power and democratic accountability, the discussion highlights significant actions taken by the administration, the responses from political correspondents Carrie Johnson and Susan Davis, and the potential long-term consequences for American governance.

---

Introduction: Setting the Stage

The episode opens with Ailsa Chang introducing the topic of congressional oversight on federal spending, specifically regarding aid to Ukraine. She underscores the importance of inspectors general (IGs) as nonpartisan watchdogs established by the Inspector General Act of 1978 to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse within government agencies.

Key Quote:

"Waste, fraud and abuse has become a catchphrase for this Trump administration as a rationale for making cuts to the federal government." — Ailsa Chang [00:01]

---

Trump Administration's Actions Against Oversight Bodies

Chang outlines President Trump's unprecedented move to fire inspectors general across 17 federal agencies shortly after taking office. This act deviated from legal norms, as presidents are required to provide Congress with a written reason and a 30-day notice before such dismissals—criteria not met in this instance.

Key Quote:

"Now, to be clear, a president can fire an IG, but he's required by law to give Congress a reason in writing along with 30 days notice. And that didn't happen here." — Ailsa Chang [02:00]

The administration justified these firings by labeling them as common practices, akin to the removal of U.S. attorneys, though Chang emphasizes that Trump's tenure has been anything but standard.

---

Expert Insights: Carrie Johnson and Susan Davis

NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson and political correspondent Susan Davis provide in-depth analysis of the administration's tactics to concentrate power and diminish independent checks within the executive branch.

Carrie Johnson Highlights:

• Justice Department Overhaul: Trump replaced top civil servants, including prosecutors handling cases related to him and former FBI Director James Comey. This included appointing individuals like Ed Martin, who lacks prosecutorial experience.

  Key Quote:

  "They're trying to transfer some of the country's most experienced prosecutors... into an office devoted to immigration." — Carrie Johnson [04:43]

• Targeting Ethics and Oversight Roles: The administration dismissed key roles responsible for ethics and Freedom of Information Act requests, undermining transparency and accountability.

Susan Davis Highlights:

• Inspector General Firings: Davis points out that the IGs were established post-Watergate to provide oversight, but Trump’s actions signal an attempt to erode these protections.

  Key Quote:

  "Donald Trump is explicitly undermining the forces within the government that are aimed at stopping corruption." — Carrie Johnson [06:55]

• Broader Power Consolidation Attempts: Efforts to control agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Federal Election Commission (FEC) are viewed as direct challenges to established checks on executive power.

  Key Quote:

  "She (Tara Malloy) called [the executive order] a power grab." — Susan Davis [07:43]

---

Implications and Potential Consequences

The correspondents discuss the ramifications of diminished oversight, highlighting concerns about increased potential for corruption, misuse of power, and the erosion of democratic safeguards.

Key Points:

• Erosion of Whistleblower Protections: With IGs removed, employees may feel less empowered to report wrongdoing, fostering an environment ripe for corruption.

  Key Quote:

  "No one's going to feel empowered now to raise their hand and report any wrongdoing or a conflict of interest." — Carrie Johnson [07:28]

• Judicial Pressures: The administration's ongoing legal battles to defend its actions place significant strain on the judicial system, raising questions about the courts' capacity to act as effective checks.

  Key Quote:

  "The big question now is how long the courts can withstand that kind of pressure." — Susan Davis [09:09]

• Potential for an Unchecked Executive: Should the administration succeed in consolidating power, it could lead to an era with minimal independent oversight, relying solely on public opinion and electoral accountability, which may not suffice to prevent abuses.

  Key Quote:

  "Taken to its extreme, it would usher in an era of little or no independent checks on the president, with fewer or no watchdogs and more politicized agencies." — Susan Davis [10:22]

---

Public Perception and Political Dynamics

Despite the administration’s maneuvers to expand executive power, the correspondents note that public support for such consolidation remains limited. The politicization of oversight bodies could further alienate constituents and undermine trust in government institutions.

Key Quote:

"There's a lot of political contradictions here... but there isn't a ton of evidence that the country is clamoring to have this all powerful executive." — Susan Davis [08:49]

---

Looking Ahead: Future Challenges

The episode concludes with reflections on the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of concentrated executive power. The ongoing legal challenges and public discourse will play crucial roles in determining the balance between effective governance and the preservation of checks and balances.

Key Quote:

"The DOJ and the FBI... have a great deal of power to put people under enormous financial and psychological pressure... it will have consequences for the rule of law." — Carrie Johnson [09:43]

---

Conclusion

NPR's "Consider This" episode provides a comprehensive examination of the Trump administration's efforts to weaken governmental oversight mechanisms. Through expert analysis and critical discussion, the podcast highlights the potential threats to democratic accountability and the rule of law, urging listeners to consider the long-term implications of diminished executive checks.

---

Production Credits:
Produced by Briana Scott
Edited by Courtney Dorning, Patrick Jaron Watananan, Kelsey Snell, and Nadia Lancy
Executive Producer: Sammy Yenigun

---

For more insights and updates, visit plus.npr.org/considerthis.

Transcript

[Ailsa Chang]

The Committee on Foreign affairs will come to order. Purpose of this hearing is to assess the accountability mechanisms that ensure American taxpayer money is being spent as intended in Ukraine. The speaker Here is Mike McCall. He's a Republican from Texas and in March of 2023 he was chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Today we have the opportunity to question the independent inspectors generals from the Department of State, USAID and the Department of Defense. This is the first time this hearing wasn't particularly memorable. It's just one example of the US Government in action. Congress conducts oversight on federal spending, like on aid to Ukraine. And so it called on the inspectors general of three different government departments or agencies. Your work is a critical component of to ensure that Congress is being good stewards of the taxpayers money and it's necessary to prevent waste, fraud or abuse and if need be, investigate and resolve any incidents. Congress has also been an inspector general is a nonpartisan watchdog inside the government. The role was created by a law, the Inspector General act of 1978, which came out of post Watergate efforts to put checks on executive power. And under that law, inspectors general set up independent offices with within their government agencies to investigate things like waste, fraud and abuse. Waste, fraud and abuse has become a catchphrase for this Trump administration as a rationale for making cuts to the federal government. But at the end of his first week in office, on a Friday night, President Trump fired inspectors general at 17 different agencies. He was asked about it the next day during a press gaggle on Air Force One. Can you talk to us about the firing of the inspectors general? Why did you do that and why is it? Because it's a very common thing to do and not all of them. Trump told reporters he was keeping some inspectors general, including Michael Horowitz from the Department of Justice, whom he had singled out for his report that was critical of former FBI Director James Comey. Now, to be clear, a president can fire an ig, but he's required by law to give Congress a reason in writing along with 30 days notice. And that didn't happen here. Trump also added, I don't know that, but some people thought that some were unfair or some were not doing the job. And it's a very standard thing to do, very much like the U.S. attorneys. Nothing about President Trump's second term is standard or conforms to norms of government. Consider this. Firing these inspectors general is just one of many moves that the president has made that undermine government systems designed to check presidential power. From npr, I'm Ailsa Chang. This message comes from Saatva. Saatva luxury mattresses are made in America by expert craftsmen using the highest quality materials so that your mattress will provide comfortable sleep for years and years. Saatva mattresses are always delivered to your home and set up in the room of your choice. They're never folded and squeezed into a small box. Visit swatva.com NPR where NPR listeners save an additional $200. This message comes from Carvana. Finance your next car the convenient way with customizable, transparent terms all online, make your budget work for you and swap hassle for convenience with Carvana. It's Consider this from n. The Trump administration continues to fire, shut down or defund independent elements of the federal government that traditionally work as a check on presidential power. Supporters of President Trump say that's exactly the point. NPR justice correspondent Kerry Johnson and NPR political correspondent Susan Davis have been reporting on this effort and how it could change government. They join us now. Hey to both of you.

[Susan Davis]

Hi, Elsa.

[Carrie Johnson]

Hey, there.

[Ailsa Chang]

Okay, can you just start by explaining first the kinds of actions that you're talking about here when you say that President Trump is weakening or eliminating parts of the federal government that would ordinarily be a check on the executive. Carrie, you first.

[Carrie Johnson]

Well, let's start with the Justice Department. My focus where new leaders have basically swept the top ranks of the civil service. They've fired prosecutors who worked on cases against Donald Trump and against people who stormed the Capitol. They fired the top ethics officials, the pardon attorney, the person in charge of Freedom of Information act requests. And they've tried to transfer some of the country's most experienced prosecutors who handle national security and tax issues into an office devoted to immigration. That's one of Trump's top priorities. They've also installed Ed Martin as U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. he has no prosecutorial experience. He's been posting on social media that he's a lawyer for the president. And he's threatened to go after people who criticize billionaire Elon Musk.

[Susan Davis]

And one of the early actions that I would point to is when Trump decided that he was to fire independent inspectors general across 18 different federal agencies. And these were jobs that were created in response to the Watergate scandal under President Nixon. They were designed to create more accountability in the executive branch. But there's long been a view on the right that these jobs never should have been created in the first place. One of the people who agrees with that is John Yoo. He's a conservative legal scholar and a former Justice Department official.

[Ailsa Chang]

And one way to understand what Trump.

[Carrie Johnson]

Is trying to do. And I'm not saying even that Trump.

[Ailsa Chang]

Understands this is what he's doing, but.

[Carrie Johnson]

The presidency, the way it's designed, urges.

[Ailsa Chang]

Him to do it, is he's trying to snap those bounds that were imposed on the presidency in the post Watergate era. So is the argument from some people on the right, essentially, there should be no independent checks on the president within the executive branch.

[Susan Davis]

Yes. I mean, people like you would argue that these agencies should absolutely exist, but they should be more directly accountable to the White House. And you can see Trump testing these boundaries by his administration's effort to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for instance, as well as the stop work orders, the firings or attempted firings at independent agencies like the securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Election Commission.

[Ailsa Chang]

Okay, that may be the theory of executive power of some people on the right, but what about critics against the Trump administration's actions? Like, how are they characterizing what President Trump is doing here?

[Carrie Johnson]

From the perspective of some of these outside government watchdogs, Donald Trump is explicitly undermining the forces within the government that are aimed at stopping corruption. I spoke with Danielle Bryan. She leads the Project on Government Oversight.

[Ailsa Chang]

I don't think it's inconsequential that removing.

[Susan Davis]

The heads of those offices whose job.

[Ailsa Chang]

It is to protect whistleblowers and prevent corruption and wrongdoing, were the early targets of the Trump administration. I think what's also important is the signal that that sends to all those who are left behind.

[Carrie Johnson]

Brian says no one's going to feel empowered now to raise their hand and report any wrongdoing or a conflict of interest. And the Trump administration is now fighting more than 100 lawsuits over some of these moves. So many it's needed to move lawyers around to defend the government in these cases.

[Susan Davis]

I also spoke with Tara Malloy. She's a lawyer at the Campaign Legal center, another election watchdog group. And she noted the February 18th executive order calling for the president to have, quote, supervision and control of the entire executive branch. She called that point blank, a power grab. Her focus was on the attempt to control the fec, which oversees campaign finance laws. And look, she made this point that it can't both be a neutral arbiter of campaign laws and report directly to the president, one of the candidates on the ballot. And I think you can see the basic unfairness. If you were to flip the situation. If, for instance, the Biden administration had exerted presidential control over the FEC, would President Trump think that his 2024 campaign was getting a fair Shake.

[Ailsa Chang]

Yeah, but I got to ask, you know, whatever your legal or constitutional theory of executive power is, politically speaking, pushing for extremely expansive executive power seems like a risky endeavor in this country. Americans fought a war, so they didn't have to answer to a king. So is there much public support now for essentially a less accountable president?

[Susan Davis]

Look, there's a lot of political contradictions here. I would note that Trump campaigned very loudly on this idea that the president should exert more power over the government, and he won fair and square. So these actions shouldn't really come as a surprise to the country. But you're right, they're. There isn't a ton of evidence that the country is clamoring to have this all powerful executive.

[Carrie Johnson]

And in the federal courts, they move pretty slowly, but they're really the only part of the system that's right now working as a check on the executive branch. They've been under pressure, too, from the president, who's been criticizing judges, and from Elon Musk, who's been calling for some of these judges to be impeached. The big question now is how long the courts can withstand that kind of pressure.

[Ailsa Chang]

Right. Okay. So obviously many court battles ahead on this, but can we just presume for the sake of argument, that Trump is successful in bringing some element of these functions directly under the control of the White House? How could that all play out, you think?

[Carrie Johnson]

We're seeing some of it happen right now? Last year, in the immunity decision about Donald Trump, the Supreme Court gave a president nearly absolute power over the Justice Department, including the ability to have conversations about criminal cases and other enforcement actions. And Trump seems to be taking full advantage of that power right now. It's really been giving rise to a concern that allies of the president are getting a break from the Justice Department and that some of Trump's critics could be getting targeted by it. The DOJ and the FBI, of course, have a great deal of power to put people under enormous financial and psychological pressure. And if that power is being misused, it will have consequences for the rule of law.

[Susan Davis]

Taken to its extreme, it would usher in an era of little or no independent checks on the president, with fewer or no watchdogs and more politicized agencies. Now, proponents of this would say, look, accountability would still exist. It would exist in the court of public opinion. Presidents are still held accountable in elections by vote, and also in the constitutional checks on power afforded Congress. Congress has the authority to pass laws to rein in the presidency or the ultimate power of impeachment to remove a president. But Elsa as we're also living this in real time. Public opinion doesn't matter as much in a second term, and Congress, particularly when controlled by the same party, demonstrates little interest in checking their president.

[Ailsa Chang]

So far, at least, that is NPR's Susan Davis and Carrie Johnson. And thank you to both of you so much.

[Susan Davis]

You're welcome.

[Carrie Johnson]

Thank you.

[Ailsa Chang]

This episode was produced by Briana Scott. It was edited by Courtney Dorning, Patrick Jaron Watananan, Kelsey Snell and Nadia Lancy. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigun. It's Consider this from npr. I'm Ailsa Changing on Throughline from npr. The consequences for the country would have been enormous. It would have been a crisis. The man who saw a dangerous omission in the US Constitution and took it upon himself to fix it. Find NPR's Throughline wherever you get your podcast. Hey, it's hey, Martinez. A lot of short daily news podcasts focus on one story, but sometimes you need for up first on NPR. We bring you the three top world headlines every single day in under 15 minutes because no one story can capture all that's happening in este mundo tangrande on any given morning. So listen to the Up First Podcast from npr. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon prime members can listen to Consider this sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Consider this +@ +npr.org. that's +npr.org.