THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

May 26,2020
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on Finance
United States Senate
Washington,D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Grassley:
I write in response to your April 8,2020 letter to the President regarding the removal of the
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community and your May 18,2020 letter to the President
regarding the removal of the Inspector General of the Department of State.
President Trump appreciates and respects your longstanding support for the role that
inspectors general play. The President is similarly committed to supporting inspectors general. In
recent months,he has announced an outstanding group of ten nominees,whom he expects to be
vigilant in performing their duties and in helping to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of
programs and operations within the Executive Branch.
At the same time,President Trump expects that inspectors general,like all other executive
officers,will fulfill their proper role as defined by Congress and ultimately as constrained by the
Constitution. When the President loses confidence in an inspector general,he will exercise his
constitutional right and duty to remove that officer-as did President Reagan when he removed
inspectors general upon taking office and as did President Obama when he was in office.
Consistent with these principles,President Trump removed the two inspectors general addressed
in your letters. As the Secretary of State has said publicly about his Department's inspector
general,the President exercised this authority at the Secretary's recommendation. In both cases,
the President did so in a manner that was consistent with the requirements of the Constitution and
of federal law,as recognized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Constitution vests the executive power in the President and charges him with the
supervision of all executive officers,including inspectors general. As the Supreme Court has
consistently recognized,"Article II confers on the President 'the general administrative control of
those executing the laws."' Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S.
477,492 (2010) (quoting Myers v. US., 272 U.S. 52,164 (1926)). In connection with authority to
appoint and supervise executive officers,the President retains broad authority to remove them.
Indeed,the Framers explicitly recognized this power: the "executive power included a power to

 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page 2
oversee executive officers through removal; because that traditional executive power was not
'expressly taken away, it remained with the President."' Id. at 492 (quoting Letter from James
Madison to Thomas Jefferson (June 30, 1789), 16 Documentary History of the First Federal
Congress 1789-1791, at 893 (2004)). And the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this
principle. See In re Hennen, 38 U.S. 230, 259 (1839); Myers, 272 U.S. at 164; Free Enter. Fund,
561 U.S. at 492.
Consistent with these constitutional principles, the Inspector General Act of 1978
expressly acknowledges the President's authority to remove these executive officers, making clear
that an "Inspector General may be removed from office by the President." 5 U.S.C. app. 3, § 3(b).
The Congress that passed the Act understood that it "would specifically allow the President to
remove any Inspector General at any time." H.R. Rep. No. 95-584, at 9 (1977). President Trump
therefore acted within his constitutional and statutory authority when he removed the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community and the Inspector General of the Department of State.
The President also complied with the Inspector General Act in the manner in which he
notified Congress of these terminations. The statute provides that the President should
"communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress,
not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer" of an inspector general. 5 U.S.C. app. 3,
§ 3(b). The President complied with this provision by notifying Congress of his decisions to
remove each inspector general and by placing each of them on administrative leave pending their
removal 30 days later.
In so doing, President Trump's actions were similar to President Obama's actions in his
removal of an inspector general. These actions were upheld by the D.C. federal courts as
consistent with the statute. Indeed, President Trump's notices to Congress used language similar
to that used by President Obama when he removed Gerald Walpin as Inspector General of the
Corporation for National and Community Service. The President explained that he "no longer"
had "fullest confidence" in their abilities to serve as inspectors general. In Walpin v. Corp. for
Nat'! & Cmty. Servs., the D.C. Circuit held that that language "satisfies the minimal statutory
mandate that the President communicate to the Congress his 'reasons' for removal," and
acknowledged that the statute "imposes no 'clear duty' to explai� the reasons in any greater
detail." 630 F.3d 184, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
In addition, placing these inspectors general on administrative leave-with pay-was
entirely proper and consistent with the statute. In so doing, the President took the same action as
President Obama did as to Mr. Walpin by placing each inspector general on leave prior to his
formal termination. As President Obama's Counsel explained regarding Mr. Walpin's suspension
with pay:
This suspension is fully consistent with the Inspector General Act. The section of the Act
discussing the 30 days' notice to Congress also provides that "[n]othing in this subsection

 The Honorable Charles E.Grassley
Page 3
shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or
removal." 5 U.S.C. App. 3, § 3(b).
Letter from Gregory B. Craig, Counsel to the President, to Senator Charles E. Grassley (June 11,
2009). The D.C. Circuit agreed and held that the congressional notification provision "provides
no right to continued duty performance but only to deferral of'removal' until thirty days after
notice is given." Walpin, 6 30 F.3d at 187 (applying 5 U.S.C.app. 3, § 3(b)). Placement on
administrative leave does "not constitute removal from office." Id.
The President complied fully with the statutory mandate to provide advance notification
before removal as a matter ofaccommodation and presidential prerogative, notwithstanding the
burden the Inspector General Act places on the President's authority to remove an executive
officer. Indeed, Executive Branch officials ofboth parties have long believed that the Act's
notification requirement raises serious constitutional concerns. During President Carter's
Administration, the Department ofJustice's Office ofLegal Counsel concluded in 1977 that a
similar congressional reporting requirement "constitute[d] an improper restriction on the
President's exclusive power to remove Presidentially appointed executive officers....[T]he
power to remove a subordinate appointed officer within one ofthe executive departments is a
power reserved to the President acting in his discretion." Inspector General Legislation, l Op.
O.L.C.16, 18 (1977) (internal citations omitted). President George H.W.Bush likewise explained
in 1989 when signing a bill containing a similar reporting requirement, "[w]hile this requirement
purports to preserve the President's constitutional authority to remove an executive branch
subordinate, its obvious effect is to burden its exercise. Accordingly, while I intend to
communicate my reasons in the event I remove an Inspector General, I shall do so as a matter of
comity rather than statutory obligation." Statement by President George Bush Upon Signing H.R.
2748, 42 Weekly Comp.Pres.Doc.1851, reprinted in 1989 U.S.C.C.A.N.1222, 1224 ( Nov. 30,
1989).
The President also properly designated acting officials under the Vacancies Reform Act. 5
U.S.C. § 3 345(a).
There can be no serious question that President Trump made an appropriate and qualified
pick in designating Thomas A.Monheim to be the Acting Inspector General ofthe Intelligence
Community. Mr.Monheim has served in important legal and law enforcement positions across
the government, including as General Counsel ofthe National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
where he was also the Designated Agency Ethics Official, Deputy General Counsel at the Office
ofthe Director ofNational Intelligence, Senior Legal Counsel at the National Counterterrorism
Center, Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department ofJustice, and Associate Counsel to
the President at the White House. Mr.Monheim is also a decorated veteran ofour nation's armed
forces. He retired as a Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, and in his military career he served
as a judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, Deputy General Counsel ofthe White House Military
Office, and Senior Individual Mobilization Augmentee. For his distinguished service, Mr.

 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page 4
Monheim has been awarded the Presidential Meritorious Executive Award, the Director of
National Intelligence Exceptional Service Award, the Legion of Merit, and the Bronze Star.
President Trump made an equally appropriate and qualified pick in designating Stephen J.
Akard to serve as Acting Inspector General for the Department of State. Ambassador Akard has a
long history of service in the State Department. He currently serves as the Director of the Office
of Foreign Missions, having been confirmed by a nearly unanimous, bipartisan majority of the
Senate in 2019. In this position, he is responsible for the implementation of decisions regarding
the treatment of foreign missions and their members in the United States. Ambassador Akard also
served as Senior Advisor and Acting Chief of Staff in the Office of the Under Secretary of State
for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment and as a career Foreign Service Officer with
service in the Department's Executive Secretariat and postings in Belgium and India.
Your May 18 letter also raised the President's designation of the Acting Inspector General
for the Department of Transportation. The Senate-confirmed Inspector General for the
Department of Transportation retired earlier this year. On May 15, 2020, President Trump
announced his intention to nominate Eric Soskin to serve as Inspector General and designated
Howard "Skip" Elliott to serve as Acting Inspector General. In Mr. Elliott, President Trump once
again selected a highly qualified individual to serve as an acting inspector general. Mr. Elliot,
who in 201 7 was confirmed by voice vote as the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, has a long career in law enforcement and public safety. In
addition to serving seven years as a police officer, Mr. Elliot graduated from the Indiana Law
Enforcement Academy and holds a Master of Science degree in Criminal Justice Administration
and a Bachelor of Arts with a major in Forensic Studies. Previously, Mr. Elliott worked in the
freight railroad industry, including as Vice President of Public Safety, Health, and Environment
for CSX Transportation. He has also served on the FBI-DHS Domestic Security Alliance Council
and as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal for the U.S. Marshals Service.
Each of these three officials has the qualifications and experience to serve honorably and
effectively in an acting capacity. And all of these officials will coordinate with relevant agency
officials, including designated agency ethics officials, to ensure that they are properly discharging
the duties of the inspector general.
Just like Mr. Monheim, Ambassador Akard, and Mr. Elliott, the President's eight pending
and two recently announced nominees to be inspectors general are individuals of exceptional
accomplishment and experience. Their outstanding credentials demonstrate that they would be
vigilant and effective inspectors general. In choosing these individuals, the President has taken
care to consider the qualities that Congress recommended in the Inspector General Act, selecting
them "on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis,
law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations." 5 U.S.C. app. 3, § 3(a).

 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page 5
We hope the U.S. Senate will swiftly confirm the President's nominees so that they can
start their important work as inspectors general in service of the Executive Branch and the
American people.

at A. Cipollone
Counsel to the President
cc:

Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator
Hon. Susan M. Collins, U.S. Senator
Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator
Hon. Gary C. Peters, U.S. Senator
Hon. Mitt Romney, U.S. Senator
Hon. Jon Tester, U.S. Senator
Hon. Mark Warner, U.S. Senator