Trump’s picks for oversight roles will jeopardize independent scrutiny of government operations, watchdog groups say

Several good government groups are flagging that President Donald Trump’s nominees to fill watchdog roles are unqualified and lack the independence required of their possible jobs, which they argue could lead to the weakening of government oversight and harm federal employees. 

Office of Special Counsel 

Trump on May 29 nominated Paul Ingrassia to lead the Office of Special Counsel, which safeguards merit principles in the civil service, protects whistleblowers and enforces the Hatch Act — the law that restricts federal employees’ political activity. 

Ingrassia has served as the White House liaison to the Homeland Security and Justice departments. Prior to his work in the administration, he was a podcast host who said Nikki Haley, Trump’s opponent in the 2024 Republican primaries, should be deported, has legally and publicly defended Andrew Tate, an influencer who has been accused of rape and human trafficking in Europe, and called Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack against Israel a “psyop.” 

David Kligerman, senior vice president and special counsel at the legal nonprofit Whistleblower Aid, emphasized that the OSC is integral to enable whistleblowing. 

“When you remove the really sole protection for a vast majority of federal employees, the special counsel, you really fundamentally inhibit the ability of folks to make these protected disclosures,” he said. “There is no longer disincentive inside the federal government for a supervisor or some other person to simply push out those, retaliate against those or fire those who have come forward to report waste, fraud and abuse, and as a result, have a profound chilling effect.”  

Kligerman also warned that a “partisan-minded” special counsel could turn the OSC from a “shield” meant to protect whistleblowers into a “sword” that could be used to go after individuals. 

“If a special counsel wanted to shut down whistleblowing, not only could he or she block any efforts by the OSC to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, but he or she could also use the OSC to actively aid and abet that retaliation by sharing information about the names and allegations of whistleblowers to the very individuals at agencies who are involved in the alleged wrongdoing,” he wrote in a follow-up message. 

Kligerman also noted that special counsels are required by law to be an “attorney who, by demonstrated ability, background, training or experience, is especially qualified to carry out the functions of the position.” Ingrassia graduated from law school in 2022 and became a registered attorney in New York less than a year ago. 

“I think that [the Trump administration will] have their work cut out for them to demonstrate that someone with just a few years of experience out of law school can handle this pretty extraordinary task in a bipartisan or nonpartisan manner,” Kligerman said. 

In a social media post announcing Ingrassia’s nomination, Trump described him as a “highly respected attorney, writer, and Constitutional Scholar.”

After a legal battle, Trump in March fired Hampton Dellinger, the last confirmed special counsel who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, before the end of his five-year term. 

Inspectors general 

In his first week in office, Trump fired nearly 20 inspectors general — officials who investigate waste, fraud and abuse at agencies. The White House characterized them as “rogue, partisan bureaucrats who have weaponized the justice system against their political enemies.” 

Individuals who Trump has picked so far as replacements include a person who was reportedly forced to resign from a state job due to misuse of funds, someone who is a leader in the department she would audit and a former GOP congressman. 

“Some of them are more political. Not all of them seem to have relevant expertise or experience, and some of them do not seem to be independent from the agency they would then oversee,” said Faith Williams, a director at the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight. “So as a whole, not a strong applicant pool.” 

House Virginia Democrats on March 28 sent a letter to Trump requesting that he rescind his nomination of T. March Bell to be IG for the Health and Human Services Department. They pointed to media reports that he was ousted from his deputy position at a state agency in 1997 after an audit showed he improperly authorized nearly $8,000 to a former colleague and accused him of lacking transparency regarding his senior advisor role with a $125,000 annual salary in the administration of Gov. Glenn Youngkin, R-Va. 

“Bell’s history of ethical lapses and obfuscation at the expense of Virginia taxpayers is incompatible with the inspector general’s mission to provide independent oversight and accountability at HHS,” they wrote. 

Bell also served at HHS during Trump’s first term and in 2015 was the GOP staff director and chief counsel for a House committee that investigated Planned Parenthood.  

Cheryl Mason, who is Trump’s pick for IG at the Veterans Affairs Department, previously served as chair of the Board of Veterans Appeals and is a senior advisor to VA Secretary Doug Collins. 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., the ranking member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, argued her nomination is a conflict of interest.   

“Veterans deserve an inspector general who will conduct investigations free of interference and collusion from Collins and the Trump administration,” he said in a May statement. “Otherwise, we will be putting veterans at even greater risk of corruption and abuse of power.” 

Trump also has nominated former Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, R-N.Y.,  to be IG for the Labor Department. The New York Times reported that he may have violated House ethics rules by hiring his fiancee’s daughter as well as a woman with whom he was having an affair. 

IGs are required to be appointed without regard to political affiliation and based on integrity and ability in: accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, investigations. 

Liz Hempowicz — the deputy executive director of American Oversight, a nonpartisan open records nonprofit that has criticized the IG firings — said some of Trump’s nominees “are an insult to every taxpayer who expects transparency and honest oversight.”

“When a president nominates ethically compromised loyalists to serve as watchdogs, he’s not trying to fight waste, fraud and abuse, he’s trying to bury it,” she said in a statement to Government Executive. “It’s not just politicization — it’s sabotage, and it should alarm anyone who cares about basic government accountability.”

Williams, of POGO, expressed confidence that employees in IG offices would continue to work with integrity despite the circumstances. But she said the firings and nominations prompt scrutiny, particularly about how future investigations will be prioritized. 

“What reports are coming out and what reports are not coming out? Do we hear of anything being sort of set aside or put on the back burner that might have a political reason as to why?” she said. “I think those are the kinds of questions we'll need to ask ourselves.” 

Neither Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a longtime IG defender, or Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, the head of the bipartisan IG Caucus, responded to a request for comment. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee who recently issued a report about the effects of Trump’s IG firings, also did not respond to a request for comment.