Judge Upholds Trump’s Firing of 8 Federal Watchdogs

Although the judge found that the president did not comply with a 30-day notice rule, she said reinstating the inspectors general would be ‘extraordinary.’

President Donald Trump leaves the White House on Sept. 22, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

A federal judge on Sept. 24 upheld President Donald Trump’s decision to fire eight former inspectors general, despite opining that it violated a provision in the law that requires the president to give notice of the firing or provide a rationale.

District Judge Ana C. Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that the inspectors general, who were fired in February, did not show that they suffered “irreparable harm” from their alleged injury of not being able to perform their duties for 30 days, corresponding to the period of notice that the statute governing their removal demands.

As such, despite finding that Trump did not comply with this procedural notice requirement, the judiciary cannot reinstate the inspectors general (IGs), Reyes wrote, describing reinstatement as an “extraordinary remedy.”

“[It is a] well-established rule that the Government has traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal affairs,” the court wrote, noting that the “IGs are officials in the Executive Branch, and the President’s authority to remove IGs is undisputed.”

The Lawsuit

The eight plaintiffs, who are nonpartisan watchdogs in federal agencies such as the War Department (formally known as the Defense Department) and the State Department, sued the Trump administration in February, days after he removed them from their positions.

They sought to be reinstated while Trump complies with the notice requirement of the Inspector General Act, the law that governs their removal and requires a 30-day notice from the president. In other words, they argue that they should keep their positions for 30 more days.

“It is decidedly wrong and decidedly contrary to the public interest to have statutory limits designed [to provide] much needed protection ... against fraud, waste, and abuse flouted by the very official constitutionally charged to take care that Congress’s laws be faithfully executed,” the plaintiffs wrote in their March 27 complaint, referring to Trump.

The Trump administration counters that reinstating the inspectors general would be an unconstitutional intrusion into the president’s removal powers under Article 2 of the Constitution.

“Granting the extraordinary relief requested would be an unprecedented intrusion into the President’s authority [to exercise the executive power of the United States],” the Trump administration’s lawyers wrote in their reply. “It is in the government’s interest and the public’s interest for these Inspector General positions to be filled by individuals who have the President’s confidence.”

The court, while commenting that it is “obvious” that Trump violated the Inspector General Act’s notice period requirement, sided with the Trump administration.

“In the typical case in which an employee challenges their firing, the loss of their job does not ‘constitute irreparable injury,'” the court wrote, explaining that an alternate, less drastic remedy for the plaintiffs would be to “recover back pay and benefits—remedies they seek in their Complaint—if successful on the merits of their claims.”

Moreover, reinstating the inspectors general would interfere with the president’s duties, which cuts against the plaintiffs’ legal position.

“The President’s ability to choose and rely on trusted personnel is central to the effective functioning of the Executive Branch,” the court wrote, noting that this authority is part of the Constitution’s mandate that the president take care that laws be faithfully executed.

“[Even if the court reinstates the plaintiffs,] the President could lawfully remove them after 30 days by providing the required notice and rationale to Congress,” the court wrote, noting that ordering a reinstatement, which is a ”drastic remedy,” is therefore inappropriate.