Bull Hedging
  • Politics
  • Stocks
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Politics
  • Stocks
  • Business
  • Investing

Bull Hedging

Politics

Axed government watchdog says Trump was right to fire him

by admin March 8, 2025
March 8, 2025
Axed government watchdog says Trump was right to fire him

A government watchdog fired by President Donald Trump in January has filed a legal brief arguing that Trump is well within his executive powers to fire him and the 16 other U.S. inspectors general ousted just four days into his second term.  

Eric Soskin, the former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, was appointed by Trump during his first presidential term. He was then fired just four days after Trump returned to the Oval Office, Jeff Beelaert, an attorney for Givens Pursley and a former Department of Justice official, told Fox News in an interview.

‘Eric was one of the fired inspectors general, and disagreed with his former IG colleagues. He wanted to make that clear in filing a brief,’ Beelaert said. 

Trump moved shortly after his inauguration to purge the government watchdogs from across 17 government agencies, prompting intense backlash, criticism and questions over the legality of the personnel decisions. 

The move prompted a lawsuit from eight of the ousted watchdogs, who asked the presiding judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, to declare their firings illegal and to restore their agency positions.

These remedies are considered a long shot, and are unlikely to succeed next week when the plaintiffs appear in D.C. court for their next hearing. Even so, Soskin disagreed so strongly with their rationale that he not only declined to join their lawsuit, but also had lawyers file an amicus brief on his behalf supporting the administration’s ability to terminate his role.

Beelaert helped author that amicus brief on Soskin’s behalf, which outlined primary reasons that Trump does have the power to make these personnel decisions, under Article II of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and updates to federal policy.

The brief invokes the IGs ‘mistaken’ reliance on a 1930s-era precedent, Humphrey’s Executor, which protects agency firings in certain cases, and requires a 30-day notice period for any personnel decisions. Soskin’s lawyers argue that the reliance on this case is misguided and that the precedent applies solely to members of ‘multi-member, expert, balanced commissions’ that largely report to Congress, and are not at issue here.

‘Supreme Court precedent over the last five, ten years has almost all but rejected that idea that Congress can impose restrictions on the president’s removal authority,’ Beelaert said.

Other critics noted that Trump failed to give Congress a 30-day notice period before he terminated the government watchdogs – a formality but something that Trump supporters note is no longer required under the law.

In 2022, Congress updated its Inspector General Act of 1978, which formerly required a president to communicate to Congress any ‘reasons’ for terminations 30 days before any decision was made. That notice provision was amended in 2022 to require only a ‘substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons’ for terminations.

The White House Director of Presidential Personnel has claimed that the firings are in line with that requirement, which were a reflection of ‘changing priorities’ from within the administration. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, suggested earlier this year that Congress should be given more information as to the reasons for the firings, though more recently he has declined to elaborate on the matter.

Plaintiffs challenging the firings are likely to face a tough time making their case next week in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Reyes, the presiding judge in the case, did not appear moved by the plaintiffs’ bid for emergency relief.

She declined to grant their earlier request for a temporary restraining order – a tough legal test that requires plaintiffs to prove ‘irreparable’ and immediate harm as a result of the actions – and told both parties during the hearing that, barring new or revelatory information, she is not inclined to rule in favor of plaintiffs at the larger preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for March 11.

‘At the end of the day, this drives home the idea that elections matter,’ Beelaert said. 

‘And of all the times that the president should have the removal of authority, it’s the start of the administration’ that should be most important, he said, noting that this is true for both political parties.

‘It doesn’t matter who serves in the White House. I think that any president, whether it’s President Trump, President Biden – it doesn’t matter,’ Beelaert said. ‘The president should be allowed to pick who is going to serve in his administration. And to me, that’s a bit lost in this debate. ‘

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

previous post
Trump’s authority to fire officials questioned in court battle over NLRB seat
next post
Sector Rotation Warning: More Downside Ahead for US Markets?

Related Posts

Top GOP senator demands probe into whether Jack...

July 31, 2025

White House urges Iran to accept nuclear deal...

June 1, 2025

Epstein estate to hand over ‘birthday book’ to...

August 31, 2025

GOP memo preps House Republicans to tout Trump’s...

August 5, 2025

Trump learns a lesson grounded in faith, how...

August 25, 2025

This July 4th, a family waits: American hostage’s...

July 5, 2025

Trump could face renewed ISIS threat in Syria...

December 24, 2024

‘Use a chair’: Jasmine Crockett invokes 2023 Montgomery...

May 6, 2025

‘Instincts for restraint’: Senate divided over who gets...

June 19, 2025

Fiscal hawks seek millions for home district projects...

August 12, 2025

Recent Posts

  • The Real Drivers of This Market: AI, Semis & Robotics
  • S&P 500 Breaking Out Again: What This Means for Your Portfolio
  • Five possible futures for Middle East from renaissance to rockets
  • ‘Untold damage’: Global assisted suicide movement targets children
  • Two IDF soldiers killed amid ‘severe’ ceasefire violation, ‘it’s not the last,’ analyst says

Recent Comments

No comments to show.

About Us

About Us

Design Magazine

Welcome to Design Magazine. Follow us for daily & updated design tips, guide and knowledge.

Stay Connect

Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest Youtube Email

Recent Posts

  • The Real Drivers of This Market: AI, Semis & Robotics

    October 20, 2025
  • S&P 500 Breaking Out Again: What This Means for Your Portfolio

    October 20, 2025
  • Five possible futures for Middle East from renaissance to rockets

    October 20, 2025
  • ‘Untold damage’: Global assisted suicide movement targets children

    October 20, 2025
  • Two IDF soldiers killed amid ‘severe’ ceasefire violation, ‘it’s not the last,’ analyst says

    October 20, 2025
  • Is Trump’s ‘heat’ on Venezuela the start of a wider campaign for regime change?

    October 20, 2025

Editors’ Picks

  • 1

    Small Caps are Set to Skyrocket in 2025—Here’s What You Need to Know

    December 12, 2024
  • 2

    Ad revenue should stabilize for media companies in 2025 — if they have sports

    December 31, 2024
  • 3

    Trump leaves China guessing what his next move is with unusual inauguration invitation

    December 15, 2024
  • 4

    Lead Price Forecast: Top Trends for Lead in 2025

    January 11, 2025
  • 5

    Uranium Price Forecast: Top Trends That Will Affect Uranium in 2025

    December 19, 2024
  • 6

    Zinc Stocks: 4 Biggest Canadian Companies in 2025

    January 15, 2025
  • 7

    Trudeau declares himself ‘proud feminist’ after lamenting Harris loss to Trump as setback for women

    December 13, 2024
Promotion Image

banner

Categories

  • Business (579)
  • Investing (2,225)
  • Politics (2,716)
  • Stocks (852)
  • About us
  • Contacts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Email Whitelisting

Disclaimer: bullhedging.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.


Copyright © 2025 bullhedging.com | All Rights Reserved