What Do An 18th Century Prussian Officer, Watergate and Phyllis Fong Have In Common?

And why does it matter?

The Annals of #47 – Day 14: 1445 To Go

The forcible phyisical removal of USDA Inspector General from her office on Friday 29th January 2025 demonstrates the descent into dictatorship and the attendant disregard for the rule of law on the part of the administration of #47. The real question is are you going to stand for it, or are you going to demand from Congress that it stands up for its rights of oversight of the executive branch under the functioning of co-equal branches of government. If US-Society fails to call this removal of independent oversight, a powergrab if ever there was one, then you will have failed not only 250 years of democratic experiment, the Inspectors General themselves, and your constitutional order, but you will have been complicit in condemning coming generations to autocratic misrule and arbitrary exercise of the newly kingly powers of office. Why is this so? —read on

Article in 3 Parts:

I – The history of Inspectors General in The USA

II – United States Code protecting the office of Inspector General

III – Why Phyllis Fong’s removal should bother you

Part I – History

The Inspector General (IG) system in the U.S. was created to ensure government accountability, transparency, and efficiency by providing independent oversight of federal agencies. Its origins trace back to concerns over corruption, fraud, and inefficiency in government programs, particularly during times of war and major federal expansion.

Origins and Early Examples

Revolutionary War (1777): The concept of an inspector general in the U.S. dates back to the Continental Army, when George Washington appointed Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben as Inspector General to improve military discipline and efficiency. (Wikipedia Article on Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben here)
Civil War & Reconstruction: Inspectors General existed in a limited capacity in the War Department and other military branches to prevent waste and abuse.

Modern Establishment – 1978 Inspector General Act

The modern IG system was formally created with the Inspector General Act of 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter. This law was a response to increasing concerns over government corruption, waste, and inefficiency, especially following the Watergate scandal:

The Watergate scandal played a significant role in shaping the Inspector General Act of 1978, though it was not the only factor. Watergate exposed deep flaws in government oversight, showing how corruption and abuse of power could flourish when federal agencies lacked independent accountability mechanisms.

Watergate’s Influence on the IG Act

Erosion of Public Trust
- Watergate, along with related abuses of power by the Nixon administration, severely damaged public confidence in the federal government.
- Congress recognized the need for stronger, independent watchdogs to prevent future scandals.
Excessive Political Interference
- Nixon’s efforts to use government agencies (e.g., the IRS, FBI, and CIA) against political opponents highlighted the dangers of unchecked executive power.
- The IG Act sought to reduce political influence by making IGs independent and requiring them to report to Congress, not just agency heads.
Expansion of Oversight Mechanisms
- In response to Watergate, Congress passed several oversight reforms, including the Ethics in Government Act (1978) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (1978).
- The Inspector General Act of 1978 was part of this broader reform movement to improve transparency, accountability, and checks on executive power.

Key Differences Between Watergate & IG Oversight

Watergate was primarily investigated by Congress and the special prosecutor, not IGs (since they were not yet widely established).
The IG Act focused on preventing fraud, waste, and abuse within federal agencies, rather than criminal investigations of presidents.
However, had independent IGs existed at the time, they could have flagged early signs of misconduct within agencies like the DOJ or IRS, potentially exposing Nixon’s abuses sooner.

Long-Term Impact

The Inspector General system has since played a critical role in preventing and exposing government corruption, helping to ensure that Watergate-level scandals remain less likely and easier to detect.

Key aspects of the 1978 act:

Created independent IG offices in major federal agencies.
Gave IGs the power to audit, investigate, and recommend policy changes.
Ensured IGs reported findings directly to Congress to prevent political interference.

Expansion & Strengthening

1980s-1990s: IG offices expanded to cover more agencies, including intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
2008 Inspector General Reform Act: Strengthened protections for IG independence, required more transparency, and improved coordination among IGs.
Recent Years: IGs have played key roles in exposing government mismanagement, from Pentagon spending issues to COVID-19 relief fraud and investigations into executive misconduct.

Why It Matters

The Inspector General system remains a critical watchdog to prevent abuse of power, ensure taxpayer money is used properly, and maintain public trust in government institutions. However, IGs have faced political pressure and dismissals, highlighting the constant struggle for oversight independence in a democratic system.

Part II – Law and United States Code from 202o Onward

Strengthening Inspector General Independence (2020–2022 Reforms)

Following a wave of questionable IG firings in 2020, The House introduced H.R. 6984 to shield inspectors general from political retaliation and require just cause for their removal.

In 2022, Congress formally codified the Inspector General Act of 1978 into Title 5 of the U.S. Code, solidifying its legal foundation. Later that year, the Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022 strengthened protections by:

Requiring the President to notify Congress 30 days in advance of an IG removal and provide detailed, case-specific reasons.
Expanding safeguards against politically motivated transfers or suspensions.
Restricting who can serve as Acting IG to prevent conflicts of interest.
Mandating Congressional updates on ongoing IG investigations.
Ensuring agencies cannot obstruct IG requests for information.
Allowing non-governmental organizations and businesses named in non-investigative IG reports to respond before publication.

These reforms aimed to protect watchdog independence, prevent executive overreach, and ensure that IGs remain effective guardians of transparency and accountability in the federal government.

Part III – Why Phyllis Fong’s removal should bother you

Phyllis Fong was appointed IG of the USDA by President Bush in 2002 after having served as IG for the Small Business Adminstration since 1999.

In April 2020 she was appointed to serve on the Pandemic Response Accountability Committe.
As Inspector General, Fong was responsible for overseeing audits, investigations, and regulatory compliance related to food safety, animal welfare, and financial management at USDA.
- Her office played a crucial role in investigating high-profile issues, including:
  - Neuralink Investigation (2022–Present): Under Fong’s leadership, the USDA launched a probe into Elon Musk’s brain implant company, Neuralink, over concerns related to animal testing. The investigation is ongoing
  - Fong’s office uncovered cases of animal abuse at research dog breeding facilities supplying laboratories.
  - Food Safety and Disease Outbreaks: Her team investigated a listeria outbreak linked to Boar’s Head and the USDA’s response to the bird flu outbreak affecting cattle and poultry, which resulted in a fatality in Louisiana
- Uncovering ongoing issues at the Trump Administration’s USDA , of course, in regard of discrimination cases!

Take-Away:

The law requires not only a 30 Day notice to be given to Congress but that notice has to document closely the cause(s) behind the removal. Allegations from the press office of the president do not count as documented cause. A dedicated public servant of good standing has been removed summarily after serving on a pandemic response investigation and calling a Musk company to account. The immediate danger to a Musk company is ameliorated and the more general threat to a proven corrupt fraudster in power inherent in the very logic behind the response to the Watergate excesses of the Nixon administration have been eviscerated.

Seems the GOP was paying attention all along.