Trump, what intention?
He did it, so, what's he up to?
Politico -
Trump fires independent inspectors general in Friday night purge
[...] Trump, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One Saturday evening, said that he didn’t know the inspectors general who were dismissed but that “some people thought that some were unfair, or some were not doing the job,” and maintained that the firings were “a very common thing to do.”
Asked whether he planned to install loyalists in those positions, Trump said that he didn’t “know anybody that would do that.”
“We’ll put people in there that will be very good,” he said.
As with cabinet nominees, opinions and guesses can differ.
Out of sequence -
It also presents a test for Trump’s new Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was narrowly confirmed by the Senate Friday night, with the Defense Department’s inspector general among those dismissed. Hegseth, in response to written questions from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) during the confirmation process, said that he would “commit to protecting the DoD IG’s independence,” according to a document reviewed by POLITICO.
Inspectors general are tasked with ridding the government of waste, fraud and abuse, one of Trump’s stated goals.
Readers must read that sentence's use of "one" to get the gist, as opposed to "several" which, if used, would alter the meaning. (And would he state that, however he really intends to move there?) Back to the quote -
Hannibal Ware, the inspector general of the Small Business Administration and leader of a council that represents inspectors general across government, suggested that the removals may be invalid because they appear to violate federal law requiring a 30-day notification to Congress before any watchdogs can be removed.
“I recommend that you reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action,” Ware wrote in a letter obtained by POLITICO to Sergio Gor, the director of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel. “At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss Presidentially Appointed, Senate Confirmed Inspectors General.”
A sense of a brewing dispute is unavoidable. More -
Some advocates for inspectors general said they were baffled by the Trump White House’s choices of whom to dismiss. Several of those who were fired were appointed by Trump and at least one — Sean O’Donnell at the EPA — was perceived as closely allied with Trump by Democrats, who sharply criticized his conduct
[...] Trump’s brazen move provides an early test for Congress, less than a week into Trump’s return to office, and in particular to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) who has long championed the independence of inspectors general. And it shows how willing the president is to stretch the limits of his authority to dismantle the federal government bureaucracy that he and his allies label the “deep state.”
[...] Grassley told POLITICO in November that Trump shouldn’t pursue a broad ouster of inspectors general.
“I guess it’s the case of whether he believes in congressional oversight, because I work closely with all the inspector generals and I think I’ve got a good reputation for defending them. And I intend to defend them,” he said.
He struck a more measured tune Saturday morning, saying in a statement that there “may be a good reason the IGs were fired” and that he would like “further explanation” from Trump about the dismissals. But, he added, Congress was still not given the 30-day notice required by law.
Trump’s decision caught other Senate Republicans off guard as well, with several indicating when they arrived for a rare weekend session that they either hadn’t gotten a heads up from the White House or hadn’t heard of Trump’s actions.
“I don’t understand why one would fire individuals whose mission is to root out waste, fraud and abuse. So this leaves a gap in what I know is a priority for President Trump,” said GOP Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
[...] Warren, in a post on X Saturday morning, said that Trump is “dismantling checks on his power and paving the way for widespread corruption.”
We must be thankful to Sen. Warren for explaining it to us, because otherwise, none of us would have even guessed about the motivation Warren sets out so clearly.
Don't you love Warren for gaining knowledge of what Trump is up to?
Or might it be only speculation on her part, and if so, what would fuel such guessing?
Read the remainder of the Politico report or check the AP report of the IG mischief for detail of which agencies were targeted early, and which may later find similar treatment.
UPDATE: Are IGs the swamp? In it for the glory, or the money? It seems not so.
Wanting them out, new people in, makes a distressingly worrisome situation?
Four years from now, we may know more.