Friday, President Trump dismissal About 12 inspector generals. These inspector generals are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. However, the president’s removal power is limited through notification requirements. 5USC §403(b) Provided by:
(b) Removal or Transfer – An inspector may be removed from office by the President. If an inspector is removed from office or transferred to another position or location within the facility, the President shall, within 30 days of the removal or transfer, state to both houses of Congress the reasons for such removal or transfer. must be communicated in writing. Nothing in this subsection prohibits personnel actions authorized by law other than assignment or deletion.
Trump apparently did not provide 30 days’ notice – which would have been impossible since Doing’s term began five days earlier. (It’s only been 5 days, feels like forever!?) IGS champion, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, stated the obvious.
“The IG may have been fired for good reason,” Grassley said, referring to the inspector general. “If so, we need to know about it. We want further explanation from President Trump. Yet a detailed 30-day takedown notice that the law requires has not been provided to Congress. ”
What is Trump’s justification for not providing notification? Maybe the restrictions cannot be applied to a new president who has just taken office? Does Trump think the 30-day clock violates his Article II removal power? Is he setting up a Supreme Court test case, emboldening one of the IGs to sue him?
Trump’s refusal to provide notice is reminiscent of the Bowe Bergdahl situation. The National Defense Authorization Act required the executive branch to provide Congress with 30 days’ notice before removing certain detainees from Guantanamo Bay. However, in 2014, President Obama did not provide advance notice before transferring detainees in exchange for American POW Bowe Bergdahl. At the time, these released detainees were part of the trade to get Bowe Bergdahl back. government accountability office concluded the transfer violation It violated “clear and unambiguous laws” and “anti-success laws.” How did Obama get around this law?
The Obama administration offered several defenses for the decision. Initially, at least, the administration said the 30-day limit had been violated. Article II Powers of the President. I wrote about the constitutional issues surrounding the release of unpublished article:
Initially, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel justified the release regarding the president’s inherent Article II powers. [and] has the power and authority to make the decisions he made Based on Article 2 of the Constitution. ” White House national security adviser Susan Rice — a stalwart on Sunday morning shows — all but hinted at the president’s inherent power during an interview this week. Lives could have been in danger. There was no 30 days to wait. And I don’t think anyone would have forgiven the US government if we waited and lost him. ”
Alas, the anti-Article II Obama administration walked with that statement.
Shortly thereafter, the administration attempted to return to that position, with the National Security Council issuing a more sophisticated statement that was not based on its inherent authority. should be construed as not applicable It added: “We believe it is fair to conclude that such interference would significantly alter the balance between Congress and the President and even raise constitutional concerns.” Congress did not intend for the administration to be prohibited from taking the actions taken in these situations. “A White House spokesperson similarly explained, “The administration has determined that given the unique and extraordinary circumstances, such a transfer should move forward.” Despite the NDAA’s notification requirementsbecause of the situation. ”
At the time, Jack Goldsmith introspection This rationale.
We confirm the position Trump has proposed to ignore the 30-day notice requirement.
