Trump’s IG picks spark backlash over scandals, partisanship

Trump’s new inspector general picks draw fire for scandals, loyalty, and partisan ties

Critics warn of compromised oversight as Trump taps loyalists with controversial records

Former President Donald Trump’s latest wave of inspector general (IG) nominations has triggered widespread concern from government watchdogs, ethics experts, and lawmakers, amid revelations that several candidates have partisan ties or troubling personal histories.

Among the most controversial selections is Anthony D’Esposito, a former Republican congressman tapped to oversee the Department of Labor. D’Esposito lost his seat in 2024 following ethics scandals, including allegations that he used taxpayer funds to pay both a mistress and his fiancée’s daughter while in office.

Nominees under scrutiny for ethics breaches and political favoritism

D’Esposito, a former NYPD detective, was previously investigated for misconduct, including working unauthorized side jobs as a disc jockey and allegedly serving alcohol without proper clearance. Though some allegations were substantiated, he denied wrongdoing.

The choice of D’Esposito has drawn sharp criticism from transparency advocates. “The cardinal sin for an inspector general is bias,” said Mark Greenblatt, a former Trump-appointed IG who was later fired. “Public trust depends on true independence.”

Similarly, Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services watchdog, Thomas March Bell, has a long history of conservative activism and controversy. Bell once led GOP efforts to investigate Planned Parenthood using discredited evidence and previously resigned from a state role amid a financial audit scandal.

Bell’s selection is seen as a signal of ideological alignment rather than objective oversight. Senator Ron Wyden called him “completely unqualified,” arguing that Bell’s past undermines the stated goal of fighting fraud and abuse in healthcare.

Veterans Affairs nominee tied to Trump administration and ongoing cuts

Another flashpoint is the nomination of Cheryl Mason to serve as IG at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Mason, who previously led the Board of Veterans’ Appeals during Trump’s first term, continued working as a senior adviser to VA Secretary Douglas A. Collins even after being nominated to oversee the agency.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal condemned the nomination, citing conflicts of interest. “This is exactly the wrong person to lead independent oversight,” he said. “Her role in suppressing whistleblowers and supporting VA workforce reductions raises red flags.”

The controversy emerges as Trump’s broader reshaping of federal oversight continues, echoing concerns raised in recent reports about political interference in key health agencies.

Ethics concerns echo Trump’s first-term purge

Trump previously dismissed 19 inspectors general in a sweeping 2020 purge, drawing bipartisan criticism. Many of the recently fired watchdogs are now suing the administration, claiming illegal terminations without cause or notice. Their lawsuits aim to reverse the dismissals and restore independent oversight mechanisms.

Faith Williams, from the Project on Government Oversight, expressed concern over the qualifications of the new nominees: “They lack basic experience — managing offices, leading investigations, or even working in oversight roles.”

Indeed, most of the six nominees lack formal backgrounds in audit, law enforcement, or public administration — a requirement laid out in the 1978 law governing inspectors general.

Other nominees raise fewer red flags — but still reflect loyalty

Not all of Trump’s nominees have contentious pasts. William Kirk, nominated for the Small Business Administration, previously worked in the EPA’s inspector general office. Peter M. Thomson, nominated for the CIA, is a former prosecutor who was nominated for the same role during Trump’s first term but never confirmed.

The sixth pick, Christopher Fox, selected for the intelligence community IG post, has not completed required paperwork for Senate consideration, further delaying the process.

Despite mounting objections, all six nominees must be confirmed by the Senate, now under Republican control. The White House defended the selections, calling them “highly qualified and accomplished.”

But critics argue that loyalty appears to have outweighed merit in the administration’s calculus — a pattern that could compromise the very purpose of the inspector general system.

Stay tuned to The Horizons Times for in-depth reporting on government accountability and federal oversight in the Trump era.