OIG Nominees Confirmed in 2025
A Wrap-Up
Seven IGs Confirmed in 2025*
On December 18, 2025, as part of its en bloc vote on 97 Presidential nominations, the Senate confirmed five new Inspectors General (IGs) in a 53 to 43 vote.
These newly Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed (PAS) IGs include:
Thomas Bell for the Department of Health and Human Services
Anthony D’Espositio for the Department of Labor
William Kirk for the Small Business Administration
Platte Moring for the Department of Defense
John Walk for the Department of Agriculture
Congress requires that IGs be appointed “without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations” (5 U.S.C. 4 §403(a)).
However, past ethical violations,[1] prior senior roles in positions with partisan affiliations,[2] nominee statements before Congress that they will provide actionable information in support of the President’s policies,[3] and nominees declining to state they would hold President Trump accountable[4] cast doubt on the independence of these appointees. This is problematic because, as the Government Accountability Office concluded, “the IG Act [that created OIGs] recognizes IG independence as one of the most important elements of IG effectiveness.”[5]
The Senate confirmed the Inspector General for the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA), Cheryl L. Mason, on July 31, 2025 by a 53-45 vote. Similar to the IGs confirmed in December, Ms. Mason served in the administration prior to being nominated. She served as special advisor to VA Secretary Doug Collins.
The Senate also confirmed the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, in Christopher Fox, on October 7, 2025 by a 51-47 vote. As with the other confirmed IGs, Mr. Fox served in the administration prior to his nomination. He served as a Senior Advisor to the Director of National Intelligence and Acting Chief in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Information Management Office.
It is of course possible for individuals to step into an IG position and meet the high standards required, overcoming doubts that prior partisan positions and actions raise. But the professional standards that govern Inspector General work state that “IG and OIG staff must be free both in fact and appearance from personal, external, and organizational impairments to independence.” These new IGs will be challenged to overcome the appearance of impairment of independence; transparency in their actions (and inactions) will be critical.
Twenty-one PAS IG positions remain vacant, plus eight agency-appointed IG positions.
.
Why independence is critical to Inspector General effectiveness
Inspectors General promote accountability
Congress established the offices of inspector general (OIG) in 1978 to:
prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in federal agencies’ programs and operations;
conduct and supervise audits and investigations; and
recommend policies to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
A prior For 250 More Substack post discussed the importance of independent oversight. Accountability for adhering to rules does not just happen. It requires enforcement mechanisms, deliberately developed skills and experience, and consistency, all of which Inspectors General provide. They ensure that individuals and companies play by the same rules, whether those rules govern taxes, food safety, public integrity, or child protection.
The link between accountability, fairness, and good government is not just academic. This graphic summarizes polling that provides evidence of Americans’ desire for government reform that include accountability and anti-corruption measures.
Inspectors General are truth tellers, with Congressionally-granted authorities to preserve the integrity of their work
Inspectors General also provide a basic democratic need: a shared reality. IGs follow rigorous professional standards that lead to fact-based—and admittedly dry—reports. Importantly, these reports often state unpopular truths. For example, at the request of the Senate Armed Services Committee Chair (Republican) and Ranking Member (Democrat), the Department of Defense Inspector General reviewed Secretary Hegseth’s use of Signal to transmit sensitive military information, concluding in the final report that doing so endangered the mission and the lives of military troops.
To catalyze the truth-telling capabilities of Offices of Inspector General (OIG), Congress granted IGs greater authority than that of other agency heads. For example, agency heads may not hinder any OIG audit, investigation, subpoena, or report and IGs maintain authority over their own personnel, legal counsel, budget requests, and procurements. IGs have traditionally served through multiple administrations—unlike most other political appointees—until this year, when the administration fired 17 IGs during the President’s first week in office.
Authority over people and budget, tenure that is (unlike most other political appointments) uncoupled from election outcomes, and requisite expertise work together to allow IGs to open reviews and report the facts as they find them, without fear of losing their job, their budget, or their staff. In other words, these mechanisms support the IG’s independence from the agency it oversees.
With Inspector General authority comes high ethical standards
The authorities IGs enjoy carry with them a weight, an even stricter standard of ethical conduct and nonpartisan service to the country. The professional standards governing IG work demand independence not only in fact but in appearance. When nominees have documented ethical violations, explicit partisan affiliations in their recent roles, or publicly pledge loyalty to presidential policies over objective oversight regardless of the legality of the policies, they create reasonable doubts about their ability to faithfully fulfill the IG mandate.
What next?
The American people deserve for future IG nominees to meet the standard of independence in both fact and appearance. The ability of Inspectors General, as an institution, to promote accountability and transparency in government depends on it.
For future nominations:
At the very minimum, the Senate should vote for each Inspector General nominee individually. This would put on record whether each member of Congress supports nominees whose backgrounds raise concerns about independence, creating accountability for those confirmation votes.
The Senate should require nominees to clearly articulate their understanding of IG independence and their commitment to it, including their willingness to investigate and report on actions by the President and senior administration officials when warranted.
The administration should nominate individuals whose professional backgrounds demonstrate the “integrity and demonstrated ability” Congress mandated, rather than political loyalty. Career professionals with expertise in auditing, investigations, and oversight—who have no recent ties to political campaigns or party organizations—should be prioritized.
The mass firing of IGs in early 2025 and the subsequent confirmation of nominees whose independence can be questioned have created a critical moment for government accountability. Whether these new IGs can overcome the appearance of political bias through their actions remains to be seen.
The stakes are clear: without truly independent Inspectors General, the American people lose a crucial safeguard against fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption in their government.
*Note an earlier version of this article did not include the confirmation of Christopher Fox on October 7, 2025 as the Intelligence Community Inspector General.
[1] E.g., “Congressman had an affair, then put his lover on the payroll,” Nicholas Fandos, New York Times, Sept. 23, 2024; Testimony Submitted for the Record Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Hearing on the Nomination of Anthony D’Esposito to be Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Labor By Donald K. Sherman, Executive Director and Chief Counsel Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington October 23;
[2] E.g., “Trump nominates Republican once accused of mishandling taxpayer funds as HHS watchdog,” Amanda Seitz, Associated Press, March 25, 2025; “Trump installs political appointees as watchdogs, defying norms,” Skye Witley, Bloomberg, Oct. 28, 2025.
[3] Thomas Bell, recently confirmed as Health and Human Services Inspector General, stated in his prepared statement that “the Office of the Inspector General must help explain what is actually going on and provide actionable information in support of the president’s and secretary’s courageous and innovative change of direction for the improved health of all Americans.”
[4] E.g., “DOD, Labor IG nominees refuse to say they’d hold Trump accountable,” Weslan Hansen, Meritalk, Oct. 23, 2025.
[5] GAO-20-639R: Inspectors General: Principles for Independence and Considerations for Reform. The professional standards governing IG work require such independence to ensure the effectiveness and credibility of their work. The standards state that “IG and OIG staff must be free both in fact and appearance from personal, external, and organizational impairments to independence.” Similar standards exist in the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS).