A federal judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump broke the law when he fired nearly 20 government watchdogs—called inspectors general—early in his presidency. These inspectors general are independent officials who oversee federal agencies to prevent corruption and misconduct. According to the law, a president is supposed to give Congress 30 days’ notice and a written explanation before firing any of them. Judge Ana Reyes said Trump clearly did not follow that rule.
Even though she acknowledged that Trump’s actions were illegal, the judge also said she doesn’t have the power to put the inspectors general back in their jobs. She explained that even if they were reinstated, Trump could have just fired them again legally by providing the proper notice and reason the next time.
One major reason the judge didn’t order their return was that she didn’t believe the fired inspectors suffered what’s called “irreparable harm.” This is a legal term that means the damage done can’t be fixed. In this case, Judge Reyes said that being unable to do their jobs for a short period wasn’t enough to count as lasting harm. Since the president could legally remove them after a 30-day notice anyway, bringing them back wouldn’t change much.
The case was brought by eight of the former inspectors general, who challenged Trump’s mass firings just days after he took office. He had removed 17 inspectors with little explanation, simply saying he had the authority as president. The former officials argued that this move violated the intention behind the law that created their roles—namely, to keep federal agencies honest and transparent.
Although the judge rejected their request to be reinstated, she expressed support and sympathy for their situation. She praised their dedication and said they deserved to be treated better by their government. She also agreed with their concern that weakening protections for these oversight officials is dangerous and goes against the public’s best interests. She did not make a final decision yet on whether they should receive back pay, saying more legal arguments are needed before she can decide.
