Eric Soskin, an inspector general fired by President Trump, has unexpectedly filed a legal brief supporting Trump’s authority to remove government watchdogs, challenging critics who called the firings illegal.
Key Facts:
- Eric Soskin, former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, was fired by Trump four days into Trump’s second term.
- Soskin filed a legal brief defending Trump’s authority to fire him and 16 other inspectors general.
- Eight other fired inspectors general sued Trump, arguing their firings were unlawful.
- Soskin’s brief argues that Supreme Court precedent supports broad presidential authority over executive appointments and dismissals.
- A hearing on this issue is scheduled for March 11 in Washington, D.C., but early rulings suggest the lawsuit faces significant challenges.
The Rest of The Story:
Shortly after beginning his second term, President Trump fired inspectors general across 17 federal agencies.
This prompted an immediate backlash and a lawsuit from eight fired watchdogs who claimed their removal violated federal laws protecting inspectors general.
They specifically cited a 1930s Supreme Court decision, Humphrey’s Executor, which placed limits on firing certain officials.
Eric Soskin, however, strongly disagreed with his fellow inspectors general.
In an unusual move, Soskin filed a legal brief supporting Trump’s right to fire him.
His attorney, Jeff Beelaert, argued the firings align with recent Supreme Court rulings granting presidents extensive authority over personnel decisions.
He also pointed to a 2022 Congressional amendment to the Inspector General Act, simplifying the process by requiring only a detailed rationale for terminations rather than advance notice.
A federal judge overseeing the case has already indicated skepticism about the fired inspectors’ claims, having denied their earlier request for emergency relief.
Proud to represent Hon. Eric J. Soskin, former DOT Inspector General, who argues that POTUS absolutely has the constitutional right to terminate Inspectors General at-will and at any time. Partnering w/ @America1stLegal: https://t.co/5uMY4nL6R4@fedjudges @mrddmia
— Trent McCotter (@TrentMcCotter) February 22, 2025
Commentary:
Critics initially attacked Trump’s firings as an abuse of power, but Soskin’s support shows these actions are fully constitutional—and necessary.
Soskin’s defense reveals a fundamental reality: the president should have the authority to shape the executive branch, especially at the beginning of a new administration.
Without that authority, voters’ choices become meaningless, reducing democracy itself to a mere facade.
Soskin’s stance is unusual but commendable, emphasizing constitutional clarity over personal grievance.
The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed broad executive powers over appointments and removals, reaffirming the idea that elected leaders, not bureaucrats, should set the government’s direction.
The debate about inspector generals often ignores this basic principle.
Critics argue these watchdogs need protection from political pressure, yet this ignores that political accountability is precisely why voters elect presidents.
Bureaucrats accountable only to themselves can lead to unchecked power, undermining democratic oversight.
President Trump’s actions, far from being illegal or unprecedented, reflect a straightforward application of executive authority.
The claim that Trump violated outdated precedent by failing to provide notice is weak, especially given recent legislative changes removing such requirements.
Ultimately, Soskin’s legal brief clarifies that presidential control over the executive branch is crucial for democracy to function.
A president restricted from managing their administration isn’t truly governing.
Americans elect leaders precisely to set policy and manage personnel; bureaucracy should never override the will of voters.
The Bottom Line:
Eric Soskin’s surprising support reinforces that Trump’s inspector general firings were both constitutional and essential.
Presidents must have authority over their executive teams, or elections become pointless.
This case is a reminder that clear executive accountability is central to a functioning democracy.
Read Next
– Fact Casual Restaurant Chain With 110 Locations Across 26 States Files For Bankruptcy
– Layoffs of US Workers Surged to Recession Levels in February, Led By a Single Sector
– Former Top Aide to Kamala Harris Under Criminal Investigation For Allegedly Facilitating Fraud